2017 (6) TMI 806 - AT - Central Excise

Default in payment of duty - Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - restriction in utilization of CENVAT credit - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded in para 5 of the said order that the facts are not in dispute and that the contention put forth by the appellant are also not disputed - the relevant facts in this case are clearly disputed and need proper verification - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Default in payment of Central Excise duty, recovery proceedings, refund claim of unutilized Cenvat credit, appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Default in Payment of Central Excise Duty:
The party defaulted in payment of Central Excise duty on multiple occasions, amounting to a total of ?46,20,549/- from March 2005 to June 2006. Orders were issued restricting the party from utilizing Cenvat credit until the default amount was paid. Recovery proceedings were initiated due to the failure to pay the defaulted amount and interest.

Recovery Proceedings:
An amount of ?41,518/- was recovered by adjusting it from the party's refund claim. The party made payments against the defaulted amount on various dates, totaling to ?45,86,136/-. Due to the default, the party was restricted from utilizing Cenvat credit during that period.

Refund Claim of Unutilized Cenvat Credit:
The party filed a refund claim of ?20,85,030/- for unutilized Cenvat credit. Initially, the claim was returned due to defects in supporting documents and lack of mention of relevant provisions. After resubmission, the claim was filed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the party's appeal, leading to the Revenue filing the current appeal.

Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
The Revenue disputed the facts presented in the appeal, highlighting issues such as the party's intention to sell the factory and misrepresentation of facts regarding the surrender of central excise registration. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for overlooking crucial aspects related to the surrender of registration and pending government dues. The Tribunal found that the facts were disputed and required further verification, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh examination and a reasoned order after proper verification of all disputed facts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough re-examination of the disputed facts by the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure a fair resolution of the case.