2015 (10) TMI 1178 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Denial of exemption claim - Ineligible documents - Held that - Prima facie, the lower appellate authority has held that when the adjudicating authority took a different stand in the present appeal when compared to the earlier order passed by the same authority in respect of input services used in the co-generation plant. Revenue also has questioned the authority of authority s power stating that he should not have remanded the case and also not discussed the third issue on denial of credit availed on ineligible documents. - infirmity in the impugned order particularly when he noticed the same adjudicating authority took two different stand on a particular issue regarding input services used in co-generation plant in OIO No. 13/2009 dated 02.06.2009. While remanding the case, the appellate authority also clearly stated that the adjudicating authority failed to give due valid grounds for denying credit on other services related to construction activities. No doubt, appellate authority has not discussed the third issue in the impugned order. Therefore, taking into consideration of the overall facts and also taking into consideration that the case is already remanded to the adjudicating authority, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. However, it is directed that the adjudicating authority while deciding the denovo proceedings shall take into consideration of the input service credit denied on the ineligible documents and decide afresh. The adjudicating authority is directed to consider all the issues open in denovo adjudication. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of credit availed on input services used in the co-generation plant for generation of exempted goods.
2. Denial of cenvat credit on various input services availed by the respondent on ineligible documents and construction activities.
3. Remand of the case by the lower appellate authority.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of credit on input services for co-generation plant:
The adjudicating authority confirmed the recovery of wrongly availed credit under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, along with interest and penalty. The denial of credit was based on the input services used in the co-generation plant for generating electricity, which was considered exempted goods. The lower appellate authority remanded the case, noting a contrast in the adjudicating authority's view in a previous order regarding input service credit on the co-generation plant. The appellate tribunal found no infirmity in the remand order, emphasizing the need for clear findings on the denial of cenvat credit for construction activities.

Issue 2: Denial of cenvat credit on ineligible documents and construction activities:
The adjudicating authority also denied cenvat credit on various input services due to ineligible documents and construction activities like ancillary buildings, roads, quarters, and fencing. The Revenue contended that the lower appellate authority should have decided the case on merits instead of remanding it. However, the tribunal upheld the remand order, highlighting the inconsistency in the adjudicating authority's approach and directing a fresh consideration of the denied credit on ineligible documents during denovo proceedings.

Issue 3: Remand of the case by the lower appellate authority:
The Revenue challenged the remand decision, arguing that the lower appellate authority should have decided on the merits and addressed all issues. The tribunal, after careful consideration, supported the remand order, citing the need for clarity on the denial of credit for construction activities and directing the adjudicating authority to consider all issues during the denovo adjudication. The appeal was partly allowed, and the case was disposed with directions for reconsideration of the denied credit on ineligible documents.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the remand order, emphasizing the need for consistent findings on the denial of cenvat credit for various activities and directing a thorough review during the denovo proceedings.