2018 (10) TMI 965 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - fake invoices - appellant had availed CENVAT credit on the invoices issued by M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana without actual receipt of the material - Held that - There is no findings on the contention of appellants herein as to why M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd., were not issued show cause notice for the complicity in passing of ineligible CENVAT credit or why the amount which have been debited by the said M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd., is to be considered as duty - It is also noticed that the First Appellate Authority has selectively considered the statements of the various individuals of the appellants but has not consider the factual position arising out of holistic reading. Due to various gaps in the impugned order, the issue cannot be decided by the Tribunal with reference to the correct facts of the case. In the case in hand, the First Appellate Authority has not recorded to demolish the factual findings of the Adjudicating Authority. The matter needs reconsideration by the First Appellate Authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing CENVAT credit without actual receipt of material.
2. Allegations against M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd.
3. Findings of the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Decision of the First Appellate Authority.
5. Arguments of the Learned Counsel.
6. Arguments of the Departmental Representative.
7. Impugned order analysis.
8. Gaps in the impugned order.
9. Tribunal's decision for remand.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant was accused of availing CENVAT credit without receiving materials from M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. The show cause notice aimed to recover the credit with interest and impose penalties.

Issue 2: The First Appellate Authority reversed the Order-in-Original, confirming the recovery proposal, and penalties, alleging that the appellant indeed availed credit without material receipt.

Issue 3: The Learned Counsel argued that the First Appellate Authority failed to counter the Adjudicating Authority's detailed findings. They claimed the order lacked substance and did not address key evidences, questioning the authenticity of the investigation.

Issue 4: The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the statements indicating non-receipt of goods from M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. They defended the First Appellate Authority's decision.

Issue 5: The Tribunal noted gaps in the impugned order, highlighting the lack of findings on crucial aspects, including the involvement of M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. and the basis for considering the debited amounts as duty.

Issue 6: Due to deficiencies in the First Appellate Authority's order, the Tribunal deemed it necessary for reconsideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a holistic assessment and adherence to natural justice principles.

Issue 7: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh review without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, leaving all issues open for reevaluation.

This detailed analysis covers the legal judgment comprehensively, addressing each issue involved and the Tribunal's decision for remand, ensuring a thorough understanding of the case.