2016 (5) TMI 563 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Tribunal s order remanding the matter back for re-adjudication - CENVAT credit on common inputs and input services - Appellant contended that the Tribunal was in complete error in remanding the matter and the submission that the Commissioner has become functus officio is based on a communication, copy of which has been placed on file. Held that - We do not think that the Tribunal has concluded the arguments raised before us of the Commissioner being functus officio in the light of the retrospective amendment. In such circumstances and when all opportunities are available to the assessee while pressing the application and the issue raised therein, all the more we do not entertain this appeal. It raises no substantial question of law. The Tribunal s order is not perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record when it refuses to straight-away accept the stand of the assessee, but directs the officer in the department to examine the contentions on the same. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Tribunal's order of remand based on retrospective amendments to the law.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of industrial boilers, specifically Agro waste fired boilers, challenged the Tribunal's order of remand. The dispute arose from an objection regarding the availment of CENVAT credit on common inputs used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods. Show cause notices were issued, leading to orders-in-original confirming the demands. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner to consider the appellant's letter dated 4th November, 2010, in light of retrospective amendments to the law. The Tribunal found that changes in the law allowed for reversal of credit based on specified formulas. The appellant filed a letter on 4th November, 2010, claiming to have reversed the credit as per law. The Tribunal remanded the matter to ascertain if the appellant satisfied the conditions of the provisions.

The appellant's argument that the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter was based on the contention that the Commissioner had become functus officio. However, the communication from the office of the Commissioner clarified that the appellant's letter dated 4th November, 2010, was received but no declaration under section 73 was made. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the Commissioner was deemed justified in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to examine the appellant's letter and determine if complete compliance with the provisions had been met to grant any retrospective benefits. The Tribunal's order was considered appropriate as it allowed the Commissioner to scrutinize the application and make a decision based on the contentions raised.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it did not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's order was deemed not perverse or vitiated by any error of law. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for further examination, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the provisions in order to receive any retrospective benefits.