2017 (4) TMI 21 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - recovery of excess credit availed than entitled - First stage dealer s invoices - Held that - both the authorities below have not analyzed the evidences and recorded finding on the actual quantity of goods on which the appellant had availed credit against the dealer s invoice. Therefore, the matter needs to be remitted to the original adjudicating authority to examine in detail the quantity received/purchased and the CENVAT credit availed by the Appellant against the dealer s invoices - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Availing of CENVAT credit on First stage dealer's invoices
- Allegation of excess credit availed
- Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Need for detailed examination of quantity received/purchased and CENVAT credit availed

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the availing of CENVAT credit on First stage dealer's invoices. The appellant had availed credit during a specific period and was alleged to have taken excess credit than entitled. The demand notice for recovery of the credit, along with interest and penalty, was confirmed after adjudication, leading to the appellant filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was subsequently rejected.

The appellant's advocate argued that the credit was availed based on the quantity and proportionate credit passed on to them by the dealer as shown on the invoices. The advocate presented a sample copy of a dealer's invoice to support this claim, emphasizing that no excess credit was availed. However, the Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Upon analysis, the Member (Judicial) found that the contentions raised by the appellant had not been adequately examined by the authorities below. It was noted that there was a lack of detailed examination regarding whether the appellant had availed credit representing the entire quantity of goods or only on the purchased quantity as shown in the dealer's invoices. The Member (Judicial) observed that the authorities had not analyzed the evidence or determined the actual quantity of goods against which the appellant had availed credit. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the original adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the quantity received/purchased and the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant against the dealer's invoices.

In conclusion, the impugned Order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for further detailed examination and analysis of the quantity and credit availed by the appellant against the dealer's invoices.