2018 (2) TMI 1225 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - adjustment of the amount recovered - Held that - it is very clearly emerging that the amount of ₹ 22,17,549/- recovered under the instruction of jurisdictional Range Officer, was not adjusted i.e. the same was not adjudicated by the competent authority and the matter had not reached the stage where the Range Superintendent could have recovered it - The action of the Range Superintendent, who recovered the amount which was not adjusted by the competent authority is not as per law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit availed by the appellant.
2. Jurisdictional authority's recovery of the disputed amount without proper adjudication.
3. Rejection of appellant's request for re-credit of the Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, availed Cenvat credit amounting to ?22,17,549 during a specific period. The internal audit revealed this inadmissible credit, leading to a demand for reversal by the Range Superintendent. The appellant complied by reversing the credit but later contested the recovery as illegal, seeking re-credit of the amount.

2. The Tribunal noted that the recovery made by the Range Superintendent was premature as it lacked proper adjudication and approval by the competent authority. The recovery was based on an audit objection and did not follow the due process of law. The correct procedure would have been to issue a show cause notice, allow the appellant to present their case, and then decide on the matter. Since the recovery was not in accordance with the law, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original, allowing the appellant to re-credit the disputed amount.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the rejection of the appellant's request for re-credit of the Cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal, after examining the records, found that the recovery made without proper adjudication was not legally valid. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, enabling the appellant to re-credit the amount of ?22,17,549. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring that recoveries are made in compliance with the law to protect the rights of the parties involved.