2015 (2) TMI 39 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification 30/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004 - Non fulfilment of condition of non-availment of CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs or capital goods - Held that - department had also sought the details of the exports made by the appellant as also the stock lying as on 15/08/2008 and the appellant had submitted all the relevant details vide letter dated 16/01/2012. It was therefore, imperative on the part of the adjudicating authority to examine these details and give a specific finding as to whether inputs on which credit was availed was used in the manufacture of goods which were exported. Unfortunately, the Commissioner's order is silent in this regard and therefore, the Commissioner has not complied with the directions contained in the remand order of this Tribunal. We further notice that the findings in the impugned orders are a verbatim reproduction of the findings in the order dated 29/12/2009 which was set aside. This again shows complete non-application of mind and mechanical passing of the order. In view of the above factual position, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the adjudicating authority once again to pass a fresh order in terms of the directions given in the remand order dated 11/10/2011 - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against Orders-in-Original confirming duty demand and penalties on the appellant for not satisfying conditions of Notification 30/2004-CE. Compliance with Tribunal's remand order directing fresh consideration of the case.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against Orders-in-Original confirming a duty demand and penalties on the appellant for not meeting the conditions of Notification 30/2004-CE. The appellant, M/s. Indoworth India Ltd., Nagpur, challenged the decision of the adjudicating authority, arguing that they were eligible for the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal had previously remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing the adjudicating authority to verify specific contentions regarding exports of goods under bond and the utilization of duty credit on inputs. The appellant submitted relevant documents for verification, including stock registers and export-related invoices, which were not considered in the impugned order. The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority failed to apply its mind and merely reproduced earlier findings, indicating a lack of proper consideration.

Subsequently, the Revenue argued that the duty demand was related to goods domestically cleared using CENVAT credit on inputs, not exports. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority did not address the appellant's claim that duty credit inputs were used in manufacturing goods subsequently exported. The Tribunal noted the failure of the adjudicating authority to examine the details submitted by the appellant and provide a specific finding on the utilization of duty credit inputs in exported goods. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order lacked compliance with the Tribunal's remand order and exhibited a mechanical approach without proper consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in line with the Tribunal's directions, emphasizing the appellant's right to a fair hearing during the process.

In summary, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, highlighting the necessity for the adjudicating authority to reconsider the case, specifically addressing the appellant's submissions and complying with the Tribunal's directives for a fair and thorough examination of the matter.