2018 (7) TMI 2034 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - M.S. Bar, Angles, Channels, Plastic Sheets, Asbestos Sheets, TMT Bars, etc. - time limitation - HELD THAT - The order of the Tribunal in the case of M/S DIAMOND POWER INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND SHRI AMIT BHATNAGAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, VADODARA-II 2015 (10) TMI 2344 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD reveals that the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit on items like M.S. Bar, Angles, Channels, Plastic Sheets, Asbestos Sheets, TMT Bars, etc., was held in favour of the appellant and it was held that the show cause notice was issued beyond normal period of limitation. CENVAT Credit - input services - Consultancy service - HELD THAT - The issue was also held in favour of the appellant, however with regards to the admissibility of payment of secondary and Higher Education Cess from the Cenvat credit balance of the Education Cess is concerned the Tribunal has held that, the Tribunal has not accepted the stand of the appellant and thereafter, immediately proceeded to direct the appellant for payment of interest on credit taken in excess on the ground that the same is not taken as a ground in appeal of the appellant. Interest and penalty - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that though the specific contentions with regards to the penalty and interest has been taken before the Tribunal, there is no specific finding or reasoning to justify the impugned order in so far as it concerns payment of interests and imposing of penalty on the Director. Case remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing and decision on levy of penalty and interest after granting proper opportunity to raise all the contentions and the Tribunal shall assign appropriate reasons to such contentions raised.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 against orders passed by CESTAT.
2. Questions of law regarding penalty, interest, and principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a private limited company, challenged the order-in-original confirming demands and penalties imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal allowed appeals on certain grounds but did not address penalties and interest issues adequately.
2. The Tribunal upheld demands on certain items but failed to provide reasoning on penalties and interest. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order lacked findings on penalty imposition and interest payment.
3. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order violated principles of natural justice by disregarding raised points without proper adjudication. The Tribunal's failure to address penalty and interest issues was considered a violation of natural justice.
4. The appellant highlighted errors in the Tribunal's order, specifically regarding penalties and interest. The Tribunal's decision was challenged for not considering arguments related to penalty imposition and interest payment adequately.
5. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's order lacked specific findings and reasoning on the imposition of penalties and interest. Citing previous judgments, the Court remitted the proceedings back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing on penalty and interest issues.
6. The Court quashed the previous orders and directed the Tribunal to reexamine the penalty and interest aspects, ensuring all contentions are properly addressed. The Tribunal was instructed to provide detailed reasons for its decisions on penalties and interest within a reasonable timeframe.