2016 (7) TMI 1109 - AT - Central Excise

Impact of subsequent decision of Apex Court on the matter already concluded - Cenvat Credit - capital goods used in the mines - Held that - it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that after the proceedings had attained finality and have not been challenged before the higher authorities, the benefit cannot be extended to that particular assessee in view of a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court. Otherwise also we find that the issue is no more res integra. In the absence of fact of filing the appeal against Commissioner s order denying the credit, it has to be held that the Commissioner s order attained the finality. In such circumstances, the benefit of any subsequent decision of higher forum, cannot be extended inasmuch as the assessee has not kept the proceedings alive during the in between period so as to infuse life into the same. The proceedings having become dead, cannot be made alive subsequently. - Decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues: Dispute over availability of Cenvat Credit on duty paid for capital goods used in mines, challenge to Commissioner's order, refund claim under protest, applicability of Supreme Court decision, finality of Commissioner's order.

In this case, the primary issue revolved around the availability of Cenvat Credit on duty paid for capital goods used in mines, leading to a dispute between the respondent and the Revenue. The Commissioner denied the credit, and the respondent reversed the availed credit amounting to ?98 lakhs. The Commissioner's order, which was not challenged by the respondent before the Higher Appellate forum, appropriated the reversed credit. However, subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case, cement manufacturers were deemed entitled to avail Cenvat credit for duty paid on capital goods used in captive mines, rendering the credit reversal by the respondent against the Supreme Court's declaration of law.

Regarding the refund claim of ?98,15,268 made by the respondent under protest, the Revenue contended that the protest ended with the Commissioner's order, which was not challenged by the respondent and thus attained finality. Consequently, the original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted the respondent's involvement in a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, indicating direct engagement with the Supreme Court on the matter. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that despite not challenging the Commissioner's order, the respondent was entitled to the Cenvat credit already reversed by them based on the law declared by the Supreme Court.

The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, arguing that the Commissioner's order had attained finality as it was not challenged. Citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar context, the Revenue contended that benefits could not be extended to an assessee if the proceedings had not been challenged before higher authorities and had attained finality. The absence of an appeal against the Commissioner's order denying credit meant that the subsequent decision of a higher forum could not be applied. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of an appeal challenging the Commissioner's order, the proceedings had become dormant and could not be revived later based on subsequent decisions.