2018 (3) TMI 823 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - the matter was decided in favor of assessee but was sent back for verification of the documents - Held that - It is seen that the appellate authority has rightly observed that inasmuch as the first order of Commissioner(Appeals) was in favour of the assessee, on merits, and it was remanded only for verification of documents, it was not open to the original adjudicating authority to reject the claim again on merits - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of accumulated and unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to multiple appeals filed by the Revenue concerning the refund of accumulated and unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The appeals were consolidated as they originated from the same impugned order issued by the Commissioner(Appeals). Initially, the matter was decided in favor of the assessee by the Commissioner(Appeals) but was remanded for document verification. Subsequently, the refund was again denied by the original adjudicating authority. Upon appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) thoroughly examined the documents submitted by the respondent and found them to be satisfactory. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary evidence to challenge the Commissioner(Appeals)'s findings, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

The appellate authority correctly noted that since the initial order by the Commissioner(Appeals) favored the assessee on merits and the remand was solely for document verification, the original adjudicating authority had no grounds to reject the claim again on its merits. Additionally, the Revenue's previous challenge to the Commissioner(Appeals)'s earlier order was either dismissed due to litigation policy or as infructuous, thereby establishing finality to the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision. Consequently, the appellate authority upheld the impugned order, emphasizing that the observations made therein were sound and justified. Ultimately, the judgment concluded that there were no valid reasons to interfere with the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.