2018 (8) TMI 606 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Since the appellant availed CENVAT credit of CVD paid on the scrap items on the strength of the Bill of Entry, without actual receipt of the said goods for manufacture of final products, the Department proceeded against the appellant for denial of the CENVAT benefit - Held that - It is manifest from the available records that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly considered the submissions made before him by the appellants. The matter should be remanded to the original authority for consideration of the submissions to be made by the appellants regarding its claim in support of receipt of the duty paid scrap material in its factory premises - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on imported scrap items.
2. Non-consideration of submissions made by the appellants in the impugned order.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The case involved the denial of CENVAT credit on imported scrap items by the Department due to the appellant availing credit without actual receipt of the goods for manufacturing final products. The Department proceeded against the appellant for denial of the CENVAT benefit, leading to penalties imposed on various persons, including the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudged demand, prompting the appellants to file appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for supplying relied upon documents. Upon re-adjudication, the CENVAT demand was confirmed again, resulting in the appellants appealing against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2: The Learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the impugned order did not consider the submissions made in the grounds of appeal, leading to a non-speaking order. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudged amount without properly considering the appellants' submissions regarding the receipt of the disputed goods in their factory premises. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately consider the appellants' submissions. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original authority for a fresh adjudication, with directions for the appellants to produce relevant documents to support their claim of receiving the duty paid scrap material in their factory premises.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants by remanding the matter to the original authority for a fresh adjudication in line with the observations made by the Tribunal.