2016 (11) TMI 313 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Section 11D applicability - recovery of cenvat credit reversed - AR submitted that the customers might have taken credit of duty paid - Held that - Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is unable to show any evidence that the customer of the respondent has claimed the benefit of input tax credit/Cenvat credit on the goods which were purchased by him from the respondent herein after payment of 8% tax and therefore the appellant should be in a position to recover tax collected by respondent. As such in the absence of any evidence we cannot find fault with the order of the Tribunal. However in the event any legal evidence is available with the appellant they may resort to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and at that stage the rights and contentions of all the parties would remain open.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Tribunal's order rejecting appeal based on fallacies and surmises regarding input tax credit/Cenvat credit claimed by the customer.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Karnataka High Court, delivered by Justice Jayant Patel, pertains to an appeal challenging the Tribunal's order dated 14-11-2014, which was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to support their contention regarding the customer of the respondent claiming input tax credit/Cenvat credit on goods purchased after paying 8% tax. The Tribunal, citing a Larger Bench decision and a Board circular, clarified that Section 11D of the Act is not applicable in such cases where the duty amount has already been paid to the Revenue. The appellant's argument was deemed unsubstantiated as it lacked evidentiary support. The judgment emphasized that without legal evidence, fault could not be found with the Tribunal's order. However, the Court left the option open for the appellant to pursue appropriate legal proceedings if they obtain concrete evidence in the future.

In summary, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision due to the absence of evidence supporting the appellant's claim regarding the customer's input tax credit/Cenvat credit benefits. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing legal evidence to substantiate claims in such matters and reiterated that without concrete proof, challenges to previous orders may not succeed. The appellant was advised to gather necessary evidence and pursue legal action accordingly, keeping all parties' rights and contentions open for future proceedings.