2019 (4) TMI 2102 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - CTD Bars, angles, joists, channels, plain plates, TOR steels - matter was remanded by the Tribunal only to verify the use of impugned items and it is alleged that the remand order was passed ex- party - CA certificate, certifying the use of such goods denied on the ground of being submitted belatedly - HELD THAT - In the Adjudication order, the Adjudicating Authority has not given an independent finding regarding the use and Chartered Engineer s Certificate. He referred to the order of Adjudicating Authority which is absolutely incorrect for the reason that earlier order was set aside by the Tribunal. Therefore it was incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to give an independent finding while passing the de novo order which he failed to do so. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered taking into account the entire facts and the Chartered Engineer s Certificate. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of certain items.

Analysis:
The appellant claimed Cenvat Credit for CTD Bars, angles, joists, channels, plain plates, and TOR steels. The counsel for the appellant argued that the matter was previously remanded by the Tribunal to verify the use of the items in question. The adjudication authority had given a detailed finding on the use, which was not disputed. The appellant had submitted a Chartered Engineer's Certificate certifying the quantum and actual use of the goods, which was accepted by the Adjudicating Authority but rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as it was submitted belatedly. The counsel contended that the certificate should have been accepted as it was part of the initial appeal. The appellant's representative emphasized that the certificate should not be disregarded unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary. The counsel relied on legal precedents to support the appellant's position.

The Revenue, represented by the Joint Commissioner, reiterated the findings of the impugned order without providing any new arguments or evidence.

Upon reviewing the records and submissions, the Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to provide an independent finding on the use and the Chartered Engineer's Certificate in the de novo order. The Tribunal highlighted that the earlier order was set aside, necessitating an independent assessment by the Adjudicating Authority. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision specifically concerning the Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 65,98,211. The Tribunal kept all issues open, including the limitation aspect, and allowed the appeal by remanding it to the Adjudicating Authority for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the necessity of an independent assessment by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat Credit for the specified items. The decision emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence, including the Chartered Engineer's Certificate, in reaching a conclusive determination.