2016 (11) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - 100% EOU - Rule 3(7)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - I find that the dispute to be redressed is the eligibility of Cenvat Credit amount of ₹ 4,05,206/- and ₹ 1,82,136/-. The appellant s claim is that the said demand is on account of wrong calculation and application wrong rate of duty. The Ld Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order has observed that the said issue has not been raised before the Adjudicating Authority, hence, in absence of verification of the facts, the claims cannot be considered. In the interest of justice, I am of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the said claim of the appellant. Needless to mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned Order is set aside to the said extent and the Appeal is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of eligibility of Cenvat Credit amount of ₹ 4,05,206/- and ₹ 1,82,136/- - matter remanded - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against OIA-SRP-111-DMN-2013-14 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal)
- Availing excess Cenvat Credit
- Adjudication confirming demand and imposing penalty
- Appeal before Ld commissioner (Appeal) reducing demand and penalty
- Dispute regarding eligibility of Cenvat Credit amount

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the OIA-SRP-111-DMN-2013-14 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), challenging the availing of excess Cenvat Credit on inputs received from M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, Jamnagar, a 100% EOU. The demand notice was issued for recovery of the excess credit of ?11,66,731/-, with a penalty. The Ld commissioner (Appeal) modified the order, reducing the demand and penalty to ?5,87,352/-. The appellant contended that the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) accepted part of the demand but rejected the claim regarding wrong calculation and wrong rate of duty, stating that these issues were not raised before the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant requested a remand for verification of the disputed amounts.

The dispute centered around the eligibility of Cenvat Credit amounting to ?4,05,206/- and ?1,82,136/-, claimed by the appellant due to alleged wrong calculation and application of the wrong rate of duty. The Ld Commissioner (Appeal) noted that these issues were not raised before the Adjudicating Authority, leading to a lack of verification. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a thorough examination of the appellant's claim regarding the disputed Cenvat Credit amounts. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing to be granted to the appellant during the reconsideration process.

Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of the disputed Cenvat Credit amounts and remanded the appeal to the Adjudicating Authority for a detailed consideration of the eligibility of ?4,05,206/- and ?1,82,136/- in Cenvat Credit.