2015 (10) TMI 1815 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Whether the cenvat credit is available equal to Additional duty paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or equal to 50% of the Additional Duty leviable, when the supplier of the goods (100%) availed exemption of 50% of the duty payable in terms of Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 04.1.1995. - Held that - Authorised Representative for the Revenue mentions that in the facts of the present case the Larger Bench decision is not applicable. In my considered view, it would be proper that the matter should be examined on the facts of the case, by the adjudicating authority in the light of Larger Bench decision, including the issue of demand is barred by limitation. - Impugned order is set-aside and matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of cenvat credit availability in relation to Additional Duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when the supplier availed exemption.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case was to determine the availability of cenvat credit equal to the Additional Duty paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or equal to 50% of the Additional Duty leviable when the supplier of the goods availed exemption of 50% of the duty payable. The appellant argued that a previous decision by the Larger Bench of Tribunal favored their position, citing the case of Vikram Ispat. They also highlighted that the demand was time-barred, a point overlooked by the lower authorities. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative contended that the Larger Bench decision was not directly applicable to the present case. The presiding judge, Mr. P.K. Das, emphasized the need for a fresh examination of the matter by the adjudicating authority in light of the Larger Bench decision, specifically addressing the issue of limitation on the demand.

The judge ultimately set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. It was directed that the authority must consider the submissions of the appellant in accordance with the law and provide a proper opportunity for a hearing before passing any new order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair and thorough reconsideration of the issue at hand.