2016 (11) TMI 782 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - clandestinely removal - issuance of Cenvatable invoices enabling to the another appellant to avail in admissible Cenvat Credit without supplying the goods - Held that - the appellant filed certain documents to prove the facts that they have physically received the goods against the invoices issued by the M/s Majtic Industries Ltd. but the adjudicating authority as well as the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has brushed aside the submissions made by the appellants and passed an order hurriedly without considering the submissions. In these circumstances the order passed by authority below has not leg to stand. Therefore same is set aside and matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to pass a legal and appropriate order as par the direction of the order of this Tribunal on 22.09.2008 after considering the reply filed by the appellant along with documents within period of 90 days of receipt of this order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. If the adjudicating authority failed to consider the replies filed by the appellants with documentary evidence the proceeding against the appellants shall be vacated - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations against the appellants for issuing Cenvatable invoices without supplying goods, enabling another appellant to avail inadmissible Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the shift of onus to the appellant to prove receipt and use of goods in manufacturing excisable goods.

2. In the remand proceedings, the appellant provided detailed replies and documentary evidence regarding the receipt of goods. However, the adjudicating authority allowed some credit but denied some, leading to appeals by both the revenue and appellants. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the revenue's appeal, dismissed the appellants' appeal, and enhanced the penalty. This led to the appellants appealing the decision.

3. Upon hearing the parties and reviewing the records, the Member (Judicial) found that the authorities had disregarded the submissions made by the appellants after the remand by the Tribunal. The orders passed were deemed hasty and lacking proper consideration, leading to their setting aside. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to pass a legal and appropriate order considering the appellant's submissions and documents within 90 days.

4. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring that the adjudicating authority would consider the appellant's replies and documentary evidence properly. Failure to do so would result in the proceedings against the appellants being vacated, emphasizing the importance of affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard.