2015 (11) TMI 822 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - CENVAT Credit used in the capital goods of the balance 50% in April-May 2005 would be denied on the ground that the Respondent opted for exemption during 09.07.2004 to 31.05.2005. They opted to avail exemption on clearance of the goods without payment of duty. - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the decision of the Tribunal in the Respondent s own case 2007 (11) TMI 609 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Incorrect naming of the Respondent in the appeal
- Denial of CENVAT Credit on capital goods
- Applicability of previous Tribunal decision on the case

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where the Adjudication order was set aside. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the incorrect naming of the Respondent as "Shankar Processors Private Limited" instead of the correct name "Sanskar Processors Private Limited." The Registry was directed to correct the cause title for further proceedings.

2. The Respondents were involved in the manufacture of Man Made Processed Fabrics and availed CENVAT Credit on capital goods during 2004-2005. The issue arose when the balance 50% of the credit was availed in April-May 2005, and the Revenue sought to deny this credit due to the Respondent opting for exemption during a specific period. The Adjudicating authority denied the credit along with interest and imposed a penalty, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on a previous Tribunal order in the Respondent's own case, where 50% of the credit on the same capital goods was allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed this decision and set aside the Adjudication order, stating that the Respondent's case was similar to the previous one where the Tribunal's decision was in favor of the Respondent.

4. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the Respondent's manufacturing process, the utilization of CENVAT Credit on capital goods, and the change in Central Excise duty provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Respondent opted for exemption during a specific period but later availed the facility of simultaneous clearances on duty and without duty. The decision was based on the principle of judicial discipline and the applicability of the previous CESTAT order.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on the previous Tribunal order in the Respondent's case, found no reason to interfere and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as it was in line with the previous Tribunal order and did not warrant any intervention.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the previous Tribunal order, emphasizing the importance of consistency and judicial discipline in similar cases.