2015 (12) TMI 413 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that - Apparent reading of page numbers 29 to 34 of appeal record, it discloses that the Commissioner (Appeals) has only printed the headlines from ELT and passed the order without examining the evidence and material fact in respect of each claim of CENVAT credit. Law is codified in section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is applied to Finance Act, 1994 requiring the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide an appeal clearly stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. That is not followed in the present case. Unless the material facts are tested by evidence and law, there shall not be any decision in the eyes of law. It shall be an empty formality. - Commissioner (Appeals) has to take up each and every item of claim of CENVAT credit and discussing the material facts in respect of the claim of the assessee, test the same on the touch stone of law - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Change of name application, stay applications, Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding CENVAT credit claims.

Change of name application:
The appellant filed miscellaneous applications for a change of name, supported by the company court's order and a Fresh Certificate of Incorporation. The learned AR objected, stating the change was not authorized. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's contention, allowing the change of name.

Stay applications:
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's stay applications and dismissed them accordingly.

Commissioner (Appeals) order on CENVAT credit claims:
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly examined the evidence and material facts regarding each claim of CENVAT credit. The law requires a clear decision stating points for determination, the decision, and reasons. Referring to the Central Excise Act and Finance Act, the Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence and law to support decisions. Quoting guidelines from a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of relevant content, readability, avoiding excessive legal citations, timely judgments, and sensitivity in language. The Tribunal remanded both appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a detailed examination of each CENVAT credit claim, ensuring a fair hearing for the respondent and considering the rebate claim after verifying the credit claims.

This summary provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, covering the issues of change of name application, stay applications, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order on CENVAT credit claims, while preserving the legal terminology and key points from the original text.