2019 (4) TMI 1919 - AT - Service Tax

Recovery of the irregularly availed Cenvat credit - Appellant had shown availment of Cenvat credit particulars at higher side, than the amount shown in the Cenvat register maintained for the said period - period 2010-11 to 2014-15 - HELD THAT - In the grounds of appeal annexed to the appeal memorandum, the appellant has specifically urged that the accounts/records submitted by the appellant during the course of adjudication proceedings were not properly considered by the authorities below. The issue involved in the present case relates to ascertainment of arithmetical accuracy in respect of availment of Cenvat credit, which in my considered opinion, had not been properly addressed by the authorities below. The matter should be examined afresh by the original authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Irregular availment of Cenvat credit
- Proper consideration of appellant's records
- Arithmetical accuracy in Cenvat credit availment

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in providing customer-oriented service in shipping and offshore activities, who was found to have irregularly availed Cenvat credit during the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. The audit revealed an excess Cenvat credit availed by the appellant, leading to show cause proceedings initiated by the department. The department sought recovery of the irregularly availed Cenvat credit amounting to ?20,97,808. The matter was adjudicated, resulting in the confirmation of the Cenvat credit amount along with interest and imposition of a penalty on the appellant. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the authorities did not properly consider the records maintained by them. The appellant provided details of Cenvat credit availed and a Chartered Accountant's certificate to support their claim that the availment was in accordance with the Cenvat statute.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the issue at hand pertained to the arithmetical accuracy in the availment of Cenvat credit, which had not been adequately addressed by the lower authorities. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the original authority should re-examine the matter, ensuring proper consideration of the appellant's records and granting a personal hearing to the appellant before making a decision.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring accuracy in the availment of Cenvat credit and the need for a thorough examination of records before reaching a decision. The case was remanded for a fresh adjudication to address the arithmetical accuracy issue, emphasizing the appellant's right to a fair hearing in the process.