2018 (2) TMI 462 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - invoices issued by their Head office registered as an input service distributor (ISD) - Held that - the matter may be remanded to Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) so as to verify all the relevant documents for the entire period and also afford a chance to the appellant to rebut the findings recorded pertaining to the period April 2006 to February 2007 as no such allegation is forthcoming from Show Cause Notice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of cenvat credit availed by the appellant.
2. Rejection of appeal filed by the authorized signatory.
3. Distribution of credit between different units.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed cenvat credit of ?49,11,392/- during 2006-2007 to June 2010 based on invoices from their ISD. A Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery, including penalties, which was confirmed after adjudication. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the current appeals. The appellant argued that the credit was rightfully availed, pointing out errors in the verification process conducted by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant requested a remand for a full verification of documents for the entire period.

2. The appeal filed by the authorized signatory was initially part of a consolidated appeal challenging various penalties. However, it was later realized that a separate appeal was needed for the authorized signatory. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this appeal due to a delay in filing. The appellant argued that this rejection was unjust, citing legal precedent and requesting a reconsideration of the penalty imposed on the authorized signatory.

3. The issue of distributing credit only to the Silvasa unit instead of proportionately between Silvasa and Ghaziabad units was raised. The appellant argued that there was no such restriction during the relevant period, citing a legal precedent. The Ld. Advocate requested a remand for verification of documents and an opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, citing legal precedents, and set aside the previous orders, remanding the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering all evidence presented. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.