9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 184 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - denial on the ground that the same have been used in the manufacture of final products which were wholly exempted from duty in terms of N/N. 115/75 - Held that - the Commissioner has not recorded a finding of fact that the entire exercise was revenue neutral. No reasons have been assigned by the CESTAT for coming to the conclusion that entire exercise was revenue neutral - There is complete absence of findings of fact. There was a finding of fact that the exercise was revenue neutral. It was not a case where allegation of the suppression of material fact by the assessee was made. In the present case, a specific finding is recorded to that effect by the Commissioner. The said finding is not dealt with by the CESTAT. As the CESTAT which is the final fact finding authority has not done its duty, we have no option but to remand the matter for fresh consideration to CESTAT - matter on remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of Modvat credit availed by the respondents. 2. Applicability of Apex Court decisions referenced by CESTAT. 3. Obligation to pay interest and penalty for wrongfully taking credit. 4. Allegations of suppression of material facts by the respondents. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Modvat Credit Availed by the Respondents: The respondents were engaged in manufacturing various products and availed Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final products, which were cleared on payment of duty. The appellant-Revenue contended that the respondents availed Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of final products, which were wholly exempted from duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to ?1,54,71,283 and imposed penalties. The CESTAT, however, allowed the respondents' appeal, relying on Apex Court decisions, stating that if the assessee chose to pay duty on exempted goods, they could not be denied Modvat credit as the exercise was revenue neutral. 2. Applicability of Apex Court Decisions Referenced by CESTAT: The CESTAT relied on three Apex Court decisions: Commissioner of Central Excise(A) v. Narayan Polyplast, Commissioner of Central Excise v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal concluded that if the assessee chose to pay duty on exempted goods, they could not be denied Modvat credit. However, the appellant-Revenue argued that these decisions were not applicable to the present case, as they dealt with scenarios where the exercise was revenue neutral and no revenue implications were involved. 3. Obligation to Pay Interest and Penalty for Wrongfully Taking Credit: The appellant-Revenue argued that the respondents were required to pay 8% of the value of the main dutiable goods cleared under the CENVAT Rules. The CESTAT did not address the facts of the three Apex Court cases in relation to the present case. The respondents contended that under Sections 5A and 5B of the Central Excise Act, they were allowed to forgo benefits under the exemption notification. The High Court, however, found that the CESTAT did not provide reasons for concluding that the exercise was revenue neutral and failed to address the specific findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner. 4. Allegations of Suppression of Material Facts by the Respondents: The Commissioner of Central Excise found that the respondents did not maintain separate inventory and accounts of the inputs used for the manufacture of fixed vegetable oil, which was chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Commissioner also found that the respondents suppressed the manufacture of fixed vegetable oil while applying for registration and provided misleading information in various declarations. The CESTAT did not address these findings, leading the High Court to conclude that the Tribunal failed to perform its duty as the final fact-finding authority. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the impugned judgment and order of the CESTAT and remanded the appeals for fresh consideration. The CESTAT was directed to prioritize the hearing of the appeals, considering their age. All contentions on merits were kept open, and the appeal was partly allowed with no order as to costs.
|
