2017 (6) TMI 571 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input services - manufacture of Made-up Textile articles - benefit of N/N. 30/2004-CE - Held that - No doubt, the Dept., in communicating its decision recorded that the appellant would not be eligible to avail credit in view of the Rule 6(i) of CCR, 2004, but there has no elaborate narration/discussion of the facts of the case and its implication on the eligibility of the benefit of CENVAT Credit on the Input Services - it is necessary to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh after discussing the facts of the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit on Input Services under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the denial of Cenvat Credit on Input Services by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellants, engaged in manufacturing textile articles, had availed benefits under Notification No.30/2004-CE. The issue arose when the Department communicated that Cenvat Credit would not be allowed on Input Services used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals).

In the case of Mahalaxmi Fabrics Mills, a similar situation occurred where Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid was denied through a communication. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal, leading to the present appeal.

The main argument presented by the appellants was that although their manufactured goods were exempted from duty, there was no restriction on availing Cenvat Credit on Input Services under the Notification. They contended that the credit cannot be denied based on Rule 6(i) of CCR 2004, especially when the goods were exported. They relied on judgments from the Himachal Pradesh High Court and Bombay High Court to support their case.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the facts to apply the principles from the mentioned judgments. The Revenue suggested remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a thorough review and appropriate decision.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Member (Judicial) found that the Department's communication lacked a detailed discussion of the facts and their implications on Cenvat Credit eligibility. It was deemed necessary to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision considering the principles laid down in the relevant judgments. The appeals were allowed for remand to ensure a comprehensive review of the case.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of a detailed examination of facts in determining Cenvat Credit eligibility on Input Services, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis based on legal principles established in previous court judgments.