2007 (1) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant reversed the credit at the direction of Excise officer - Subsequently, as no show cause notice was received or any order passed confirming the demand by denying the credit, the appellants were asked for refund of that amount - contention is that, there is no order passed by the competent authority for reversal of this credit there is merit in the contention of the appellant that no show cause notice was issued nor any adjudication order was passed by the competent authority for denial of the credit in question - therefore, the appellants are entitled to this credit which was reversed

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding reversal of Modvat credit.
2. Entitlement to credit without show cause notice or adjudication order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the reversal of Modvat credit availed on duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing the final product. The appellant claimed that they reversed the credit on the direction of the Excise officer on 11-1-1996. Despite no show cause notice or order confirming the demand by denying the credit, the appellant requested a refund. The Assistant Commissioner, through a letter dated 24-10-2000, informed the appellant that the issue had been decided without any reference to an adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, but the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that without a proper notice or adjudication order, they were entitled to the credit reversed in 1996. The appeal was allowed based on this finding.

2. The key issue revolved around the entitlement of the appellant to the Modvat credit that was reversed in 1996 without any formal show cause notice or adjudication order. The Tribunal noted that the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified as the appellant had not been issued any demand notice or faced any confirmed denial of credit. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that without a proper adjudication process, they were rightfully entitled to the credit in question. The absence of a formal order from the competent authority for the reversal of credit supported the appellant's claim for refund. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of a show cause notice or adjudication order as crucial factors in determining the appellant's entitlement to the credit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural irregularities in the denial of Modvat credit to the appellant and the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal based on the absence of formal notices or orders confirming the denial of credit.