2015 (11) TMI 596 - AT - Central Excise

Distribution of input services (ISD) - The dispute in the present case is in respect of Malanpur unit. The department s contention is that the credit of service distributed to Malanpur unit also included the credit attributable to Baddi unit. - Exemption under notification No. 56/02-CE and 32/99-CE - refund of duty paid through PLA - Held that - appellant s head office is registered as ISD and their units as located at Malanpur Assam Jammu and Baddi. Baddi unit is fully exempt from duty as the same is availing the benefit of Notification NO.50/03-CE while unit at Mallanpur cleared its products on payment of duty. Assam unit and Jammu unit availed the exemption under Notification No.32/99-CE and Notification No.56/02-CE respectively and initially cleared the goods on payment of duty by using Cenvat credit available at the end of the month to the extent possible and claimed exemption under these notifications of the duty if any paid through PLA. - appellant had raised the question of limitation and but the Commissioner has not given any finding whatsoever on this point. The Commissioner has passed a non-speeding order. Hence the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over distribution of credit between units, Commissioner's order validity, Limitation period invocation.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the distribution of credit among different manufacturing units of a company, with specific focus on the Malanpur unit. The appellant, an input service distributor, faced a show cause notice for allegedly wrongly availing credit that included amounts attributable to a fully exempt unit in Baddi. The Commissioner's Order-in-Original confirmed a significant credit demand against the appellant unit and imposed penalties. However, the appellant contended that before distributing the credit, the head office had reversed the credit attributable to the exempt Baddi unit in proportion to its turnover. This argument was raised in various responses and pleas but was not addressed in the Commissioner's order, leading to the appeal and stay application.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel emphasized the failure of the Commissioner to address crucial points raised by the appellant, including the attribution of credit to the exempt Baddi unit and the plea regarding the limitation period. The Commissioner's order was criticized for being non-speaking and lacking specific findings on these critical issues. On the other hand, the JCDR defended the impugned order but acknowledged the absence of discussion on the appellant's raised grounds in the Order-in-Original.

The Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and set aside the Commissioner's order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's assertion that the head office had appropriately adjusted the credit before distribution, a point that was not addressed in the previous order. Additionally, the failure to provide a ruling on the limitation plea was deemed a deficiency in the Commissioner's decision-making process. Therefore, the case was sent back for a comprehensive review, emphasizing the need for a speaking order that considers all relevant aspects, including the distribution of credit and the invocation of the limitation period.

This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and reasoned decision-making process by the adjudicating authority, ensuring that all raised issues are adequately addressed to uphold the principles of natural justice and fairness in tax matters.