2016 (3) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit on the basis of in-genuine documents - demand barred by limitation - Held that - Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ( 2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) on the identical situation held that the demand as barred by limitation. In the present case, the submission of the appellants as revealed from the adjudication order, was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). In our considered view, the facts of the case and the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court as cited by the Learned Advocate are required to be examined by the adjudicating authority in the interest of justice - Decided in favour of assessee way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Contesting demand of duty mainly on limitation
2. Availing CENVAT credit based on documents' genuineness
3. Consideration of relevant case law by the Commissioner (Appeals)
4. Examination of facts in light of Gujarat High Court decision

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellants contested the demand of duty for February 2005 primarily on the grounds of limitation. The case involved the manufacture of Processed Fabrics and availing CENVAT credit based on specific invoices issued by a trading company.

Issue 2: The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the credit was availed based on additional documents whose genuineness was not established by the appellants. The adjudication order highlighted the submission of a Registration Certification, but the authenticity of the documents was questioned.

Issue 3: The appellants relied on legal precedents and case law to support their defense, emphasizing the admissibility of CENVAT credit when supported by genuine inputs and duty-paying documents from registered dealers. Reference was made to specific orders and steps taken to ensure compliance with the law.

Issue 4: The judgment referred to a Gujarat High Court decision in a similar case, where the demand was held as barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the submissions adequately and remanded the matter to the Adjudication Authority for a fresh examination in light of the Gujarat High Court ruling.

In conclusion, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for a reevaluation of the facts and consideration of the Gujarat High Court decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to provide a proper opportunity for hearing before issuing a new order, thereby allowing the appeal by way of remand.