2015 (10) TMI 897 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on various items namely angles, channels, beams, plates etc. - Held that - Entire dispute centers around the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on various items namely angles, channels, beams, plates etc. which the Revenue alleged to have been used for fabrication of supporting structures, whereas the claim of the appellant was that all these items were used in the fabrication of parts and components of machineries, which satisfy the definition of capital goods laid down under rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, accordingly eligible to the CENVAT Credit. We find that the issues raised rests on determination of facts on the basis of evidences adduced by both sides which has not been properly carried out, a fact not disputed by both sides. In the result, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority, to decide all the issues afresh taking into consideration the evidences on record and the evidences that would be produced by the appellant during the course of adjudication proceeding. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty under Central Excise Act, 1944 and CENVAT Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1.32 Crores and an equal amount imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The dispute revolves around the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on items like angles, channels, beams, plates, etc., with the Revenue alleging their use in fabrication of supporting structures, while the appellant claims they were used in the fabrication of parts and components of machineries, qualifying as capital goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant's representative argued that the demand was unjustified as the inputs were indeed used in the fabrication of eligible machinery parts, but conceded that the evidence supporting this claim was lacking before the adjudicating authority. The advocate contended that the demand was time-barred and offered to deposit Rs. 10.00 Lakhs, requesting a remand to reconsider the issues. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to dispose of the appeal at that stage with the consent of both parties.

The Tribunal noted that the determination of facts based on the evidence presented by both sides was not adequately conducted, a point agreed upon by both parties. Consequently, it was deemed appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration of all issues, taking into account the existing evidence on record and any additional evidence the appellant might produce during the proceedings. The offer to deposit Rs. 10.00 Lakhs was considered reasonable at that juncture. The appellant was directed to make the deposit within eight weeks and report compliance directly to the Commissioner. All issues were kept open, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing for the appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →