2018 (4) TMI 589 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Revenue wants to re-argue the matter on the various aspects of the law - Held that - assessee did not file any appeal before first appellate authority against said order-in-original. Revenue preferred an appeal on the ground that adjudicating authority has erred in allowing cenvat credit. This approach was attempted by the Revenue in the case of Ahmadabad Packaging Inds. Ltd. 2009 (7) TMI 1002 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , in which case the Bench held that such recourse of rearguing the matter does not arise unless the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the decision of first appellate authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Correct availing of cenvat credit by the respondent from a 100% EOU
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. AV (196) 19/2013
- Consideration of Tribunal's judgment in the case of M/S. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging Order-in-Appeal No. AV (196) 19/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad. Despite the absence of the respondent, the issue of correct availing of cenvat credit from a 100% EOU was considered for disposal.

2. The Ld. AR presented the grounds of appeal, highlighting the denial of cenvat credit on the duty paid by a 100% EOU. The adjudicating authority had disallowed a portion of the credit, ordered interest, and imposed a penalty. The assessee did not appeal the order-in-original, leading the Revenue to file an appeal on the grounds of alleged error in allowing the credit.

3. Both lower authorities referred to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of M/S. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to support the assessee's position. The Tribunal's decision was accepted by the Revenue, and attempts to re-argue the matter were dismissed based on established legal principles and precedents.

4. The first appellate authority upheld the order-in-original, relying on the Tribunal's judgment and rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The impugned order was deemed correct and legal, warranting no interference. Consequently, the appeal was found devoid of merits and rejected, with the cross-objection also disposed of accordingly.