2015 (10) TMI 1204 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 - Held that - during the personal hearing on 17.03.2011, the representative of the appellant explained in detail on the export and other issues. The appellant after the personal hearing by letter dated 05.05.2011 replied the enquiries made by the Commissioner (Appeals) during the personal hearing. The Show Cause Notices were issued on the basis of the verification report of the Superintendent, which was not disclosed to appellant, as contended by the learned advocate. It is noted that appellant produced the documents which were not properly considered by the lower authorities. The findings of the Adjudicating Authority in this regard are misconceived. Thus, the impugned orders were passed without proper appreciation of the evidences, as placed by the appellant. In my considered view, the Adjudicating Authority should have examined the documents in proper manner and also provide the copy of the investigation report as referred in the Show Cause Notice, to the appellants. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Failure to fulfill Condition No. 4 of the notification; Contradictory findings of lower authorities; Proper appreciation of evidences; Remand to Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision.

Analysis:
The appeals in this case arose from a common order regarding refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claims, which were further rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the appellant's failure to fulfill Condition No. 4 of the notification. The Learned Advocate argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) decision contradicted a previous Tribunal decision and that the appellant had provided evidence of non-utilization of credit before filing the refund claims.

On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the appellant did not avail the opportunity to produce necessary documents as requested. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants failed to demonstrate their inability to utilize the input credit and input service credit. However, it was noted that the Adjudicating Authority's findings were contradictory and inconsistent as the appellant had indeed submitted documents, although not all details were provided.

Upon review, it was found that during a personal hearing, the appellant had explained export-related issues in detail, and documents were produced but not properly considered by the lower authorities. The impugned orders were deemed to lack proper appreciation of the evidence presented by the appellant. Consequently, the orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to examine the documents thoroughly, provide a copy of the investigation report, and allow the appellant proper opportunity for a hearing before passing a new order. All appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of a fair and thorough reconsideration of the case.