2017 (3) TMI 1203 - AT - Central Excise

Natural justice - MODVAT credit - Liability to differential duty with reference to railway packaging, statutory levies and other charges - Held that - the defense submission by the appellant were not on record before the Original Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, no detailed examination of their defense has been recorded in the original order - The appellants filed reply in response to the letter received from Superintendent in the Commissioner s office. In normal course such reply should have been forwarded to the concerned Adjudicating authority - order personally passed by the lower authorities is not tenable due to non verification of relevant and material facts to arrive at a correct decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of the appellant for availing MODVAT credit on inputs used in manufacture.
2. Liability to differential duty concerning railway packaging, statutory levies, and other charges.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for MODVAT Credit
The appeal pertains to a dispute dating back to 1993-94, involving the eligibility of the appellant for availing MODVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, which was subsequently confirmed by the impugned order. The appellant raised concerns regarding the denial of an opportunity to present their case before the Adjudicating Authority for a denovo decision. Despite the appellant submitting a reply to the Commissioner's office, the Original Adjudicating Authority proceeded to adjudicate the case afresh without considering the appellant's response. The Tribunal noted that the defense submissions by the appellant were not on record before the Original Adjudicating Authority, leading to a lack of detailed examination of their defense in the original order. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' decision untenable due to the non-verification of relevant facts, prompting the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision.

Issue 2: Liability to Differential Duty
The second issue pertains to the appellant's liability to differential duty concerning railway packaging, statutory levies, and other charges. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the issue, given its age of over two decades. The Tribunal directed the appellant to expedite the proceedings by submitting all necessary documentation and evidence directly to the Adjudicating Authority. Furthermore, the appellant was instructed to appear for the personal hearing without seeking adjournments. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision, ensuring a comprehensive review of the issues at hand.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of due process and the need for a meticulous examination of facts and submissions in adjudicating matters related to MODVAT credit eligibility and liability to differential duty. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case underscores the significance of fair consideration and verification of all relevant information before reaching a final determination.