2019 (1) TMI 1581 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs - export of goods - rebate claimed - HELD THAT - We admit the appeal on the ground that there is substantial point of law involved. Nonetheless considering the fact that some factual issues are also involved, we think it fit to remand the matter back to the Learned Tribunal after setting aside the impugned order dated 20th March, 2018 with a request to the Learned Tribunal to re-hear and re-determine the matter afresh within three months of communication of this order. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding double benefit entitlement for exported gift boxes containing a mix of items.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta, comprising Judges I. P. Mukerji and Amrita Sinha, heard the appeal where Mr. Joybrata Misra represented the Appellant, and Mr. Somnath Ganguli along with Ms. Manasi Mukherjee represented the Respondents. The Court noted that the Tribunal's order lacked sufficient reasoning to support its decision. The Tribunal found that the Appellant exported gift boxes containing a mix of items, some bought from the market and others manufactured by the Appellant. However, the Tribunal's reasoning on denying the claim for double benefit under Section 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was unclear. The Court questioned the basis for denying the claim, the specific rebate claimed by the Appellant, and the nature of the alleged double benefit sought by the Appellant.

The Court highlighted the lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's decision and observed that the denial of the Appellant's claim was not adequately supported. Consequently, the Court decided to admit the appeal due to the substantial legal issue involved. However, considering the presence of factual complexities, the Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh determination. The Tribunal was directed to re-hear and re-determine the case within three months of receiving the Court's order. The appeal (CEXA 88 of 2018) was disposed of, and the stay application (GA 2903 of 2018) was also resolved accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of clear and reasoned decisions in matters involving legal entitlements under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, ensuring a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.