2015 (8) TMI 1189 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Free issue of material - Held that - Claim of the appellant before the adjudicating authority was free of issue of material cannot be considered for inclusion in value for discharging service tax liability and had produced some documents. In our view the claim of the appellant regarding non-avilment of CENVAT Credit by reversing the amount availed also needs to be appreciated by the lower authority, a law which has been settled in various cases. In short, we find that the entire issue needs to be gone into detail by the adjudicating authority by appreciating various points raised by the appellant in reply to the show-cause notice as well as various submissions made by them during personal hearing. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order-in-original, consideration of submissions, reversal of CENVAT Credit, denial of composition scheme, non-production of documents, reevaluation of the case.

Analysis:
1. Appeal against order-in-original: The judgment addresses three appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the same order-in-original. The appeals were related to identical questions and were thus disposed of collectively to streamline the process.

2. Consideration of submissions: The main contention raised was that the adjudicating authority did not consider the submissions of the appellant accurately. The appellant argued that the authority failed to acknowledge issues such as the free issue of material, reversal of CENVAT Credit on capital goods, and non-payment of amounts recovered from customers. It was highlighted that although the authority claimed certain documents were not produced, they were indeed submitted.

3. Reversal of CENVAT Credit and denial of composition scheme: The judgment emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the appellant's claims regarding the non-avilment of CENVAT Credit by reversing the amount availed. It was noted that this aspect required proper appreciation by the lower authority, considering established legal principles. The denial of the composition scheme due to the availment of CENVAT Credit on capital goods and uncollected amounts from customers was a significant issue that needed thorough scrutiny.

4. Non-production of documents: While the Departmental Representative acknowledged that some documents were not presented by the appellant, it was clarified that the adjudicating authority had indeed considered the responses to the show-cause notice and representations made during the proceedings. The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring all relevant documents are provided for a comprehensive assessment.

5. Reevaluation of the case: The Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The purpose was to allow a fresh consideration of all issues raised by the appellant, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The appeal filed by the Revenue was also permitted for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need for a detailed review of the entire case.

6. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of in the manner outlined above, indicating the Tribunal's decision to grant a reevaluation of the case by the adjudicating authority, focusing on the various points raised by the appellant and ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the issues at hand.