2018 (5) TMI 88 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - whether the appellant wrongly availed credit of ₹ 48,11,855/- without receiving the input steel materials of 599 MT.? - cross-examination not allowed - principles of natural justice - Held that - statements which are challenged by the appellants required to be subjected to cross examination - also, the show cause notice being issued by the DGCEI, who has no jurisdiction to issue the notice during the relevant period, the said issue being contested by the appellant, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Alleged wrongful availment of credit without receiving input steel materials.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, were alleged to have wrongly availed credit without receiving 599 MT of input steel materials, resulting in a demand for recovery with interest and penalty. The demand was confirmed on adjudication, leading to the appellants' appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected, prompting the present appeals.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the allegation of non-receipt of input materials and substitution with inferior quality steel was baseless due to the rigorous technical tests the finished goods underwent before being supplied to public sector undertakings. The advocate contended that reliance on statements of transporters without cross-examination was unjust, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice. Additionally, the jurisdiction of DGCEI to issue the show cause notice was challenged, citing legal precedents.

3. The main issue revolved around whether the appellant wrongly availed credit without receiving the input steel materials. The advocate highlighted the strict quality control measures in place for the finished goods supplied to public sector undertakings, arguing against the non-receipt allegation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contentions, emphasizing the necessity of subjecting challenged statements to cross-examination as per established legal principles. Moreover, the jurisdictional issue regarding the show cause notice led to the remand of the matter to the Adjudicating Authority.

4. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for further proceedings. The decision was based on the failure to adhere to principles of natural justice and the jurisdictional challenge regarding the show cause notice, necessitating a fresh examination of the case.