2017 (12) TMI 1018 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - rejected goods - Rule 16(2) of the CER, 2002 - Held that - appellants are still ready to produce those invoices which can correlate the receipt and clearance of rejected goods. Since these documents were not considered by the Learned Commissioner (A) by observing that they are not on the paper book of the appeal, this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to pass a de novo order after considering all the evidences which the appellant may produce in their favor to prove their claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against modified demand of CENVAT credit
- Allegation of insufficient documentary evidence
- Consideration of evidences by appellate authority

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against modified demand of CENVAT credit
The appellant appealed against the demand of irregularly availed CENVAT credit of ?1,37,025. The Assistant Commissioner issued a Show Cause Notice proposing this demand, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who modified the demand. The appellant contended that out of the total demand, they were liable to pay only ?7,000, which had already been paid with interest. The appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable in law and that they were willing to produce evidence showing the clearance of goods on payment of duty after re-processing.

Issue 2: Allegation of insufficient documentary evidence
The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order was passed contrary to facts and law. They claimed that relevant documentary evidence, including invoices for the receipt and dispatch of rejected goods, was available but not considered by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (A) also noted the absence of such evidence in the paper book filed before him. The appellant cited a precedent to support their argument that in the absence of sufficient documents, the appeal should not have been rejected.

Issue 3: Consideration of evidences by appellate authority
After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Judicial Member found that the appellant had indeed produced documentary evidence showing the clearance of goods on payment of duty after re-processing. The Judicial Member noted that the appellant was willing to provide additional invoices to support their claim. Since these documents were not considered by the Commissioner (A), the Judicial Member decided to remand the case back to the original authority. The Judicial Member directed the original authority to consider all evidences provided by the appellant, comply with principles of natural justice, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidences and complying with legal principles in reaching a decision.