2015 (3) TMI 426 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of CENVAT Credit - Commissioner (Appeals) found that invoices on which credit was taken were having different address than which was reflected in their STC code and registration number - Held that - if opportunity of reconciliation is granted, they would be able to satisfy Commissioner (Appeals). To provide natural justice, it is necessary that one opportunity is granted. - Accordingly stay application could not be considered at this stage and it is disposed off. Further Order-in-Appeal is also set aside and case is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals). He will listen both the side after issuing notice and granting opportunity to produce documents, if any and decide the case within three months from the issue of this order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on Service Tax availed with invalid documents.
2. Invocation of the extended period of limitation.
3. Liability for interest and penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of CENVAT credit on Service Tax availed with invalid documents
The case involved the appellant appealing against the confirmation of demand amounting to Rs. 94,239 due to inadmissible Service Tax credit taken on input services with invalid documents. The audit team observed the appellant had taken Rs. 1,10,991 inadmissible credit during 2009-2010 and provided details of additional irregular credits in subsequent years. The appellant was issued a notice to show cause why CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,37,532 should not be demanded. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under relevant rules. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the demand but allowed credit of Rs. 43,293 where information was found accurate. The appellant contended that reconciliation opportunity was not provided adequately. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submission and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for further consideration, emphasizing the need for natural justice and granting reconciliation opportunity.

Issue 2: Invocation of the extended period of limitation
The Commissioner (Appeal) considered whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked in the case. The appellant argued for reconciliation opportunity to address discrepancies in PAN-based registration and STC code details. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of providing a fair opportunity for reconciliation to ensure natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeal) for a reevaluation after granting both parties the chance to present relevant documents and information within a specified timeframe.

Issue 3: Liability for interest and penalty
The case also involved the determination of liability for interest and penalty in relation to the CENVAT credit discrepancies. The Commissioner (Appeal) confirmed the demand for CENVAT credit, interest, and penalty. However, the Tribunal's decision to remand the case back for further consideration implied a reassessment of the interest and penalty aspects by the Commissioner (Appeal) in light of the reconciliation opportunity to be provided to the appellant. The Tribunal's emphasis on natural justice and the need for a fair chance to reconcile information indicated a potential impact on the final determination of interest and penalty liabilities upon reevaluation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on ensuring procedural fairness, particularly regarding reconciliation opportunities, in the context of CENVAT credit disputes. The remand of the case back to the Commissioner (Appeal) underscored the significance of providing both parties with adequate chances to address discrepancies and present relevant evidence, ultimately aiming to uphold principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.