2018 (5) TMI 18 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - inputs which were cleared without reversal of the Cenvat Credit - penalties - case of appellant is that they had produced documents/records before the lower authorities evidencing that Cenvat Credit was not availed on trading goods and the said plea was not verified despite specific request - Held that - All the claims of the appellant has been very cursorily brushed aside by the Adjudicating Authority in Para No 23.2. and 23.3. The First Appellate Authority has also not considered the grounds of appeal raised before him - the appellants have been claiming before the lower authorities that Annexures 1 to 7 to the SCN have not been properly given to them and they need access to the original Annexures to the SCN to rework out the factual position / consequential the plea of the appellants for various other claims of as to the duty liability was incorrectly worked out also needs to be considered. The Adjudicating Authority should reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice and also on the law settled on the point of examination / cross examination by various judgements - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals against OIA-VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-46-48-14-15; Absence of representation by the appellant; Demand of Central Excise duty, reversal of Cenvat Credit, and penalties; Contention regarding Cenvat Credit availed on trading goods; Adjudicating Authority's decision to confirm demands; Reconsideration of the matter by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals challenging the OIA-VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-46-48-14-15 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax (Appeals) - VAPI, which are being disposed of collectively. Despite the appellant's advocate being out of the country, multiple adjournments were granted previously. However, due to the continued absence of representation, the matter was taken up for disposal. The issue revolves around the demand for Central Excise duty, reversal of Cenvat Credit, and penalties imposed on the appellants. The appellants contested the demand, arguing that Cenvat Credit was not availed on trading goods, and discrepancies in calculations were not addressed. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the demands, including duty, recovery of Cenvat Credit, interest, and penalties.

Upon review, the Member found that the matter required reconsideration for several reasons. The appellant had raised specific objections during the proceedings, which were inadequately addressed by the Adjudicating Authority. The calculations and clearance of trading goods were crucial points contested by the appellant, emphasizing the need for a thorough reevaluation. The Adjudicating Authority's dismissal of these claims without proper consideration led to the decision to remand the matter back for fresh assessment. The Member highlighted the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the necessity for a detailed examination, including access to original documents and the opportunity for cross-examination.

In the final decision, the impugned order was set aside without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for a comprehensive reevaluation following the principles of natural justice. The appeals were disposed of through remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration of the issues raised by the appellants.