2018 (10) TMI 1275 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 6(3A)(b)(iii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - no speaking order has been passed - suppression of facts - time limitation - Held that - There is force in the contention of the appellant that most of the demand is time-barred as there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant with intention to evade tax. Further, the appellants have been giving intimation from time to time regarding reversal of CENVAT Credit as per CCR, 2004 but the Commissioner (A) has not given any findings in these two appeals with regard to the issue involved. The appeals need to be remanded back to the Commissioner (A) with a direction to give specific findings on merit as well as on limitation - Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (A) to dispose of the appeal within a period of 02 months.

Summary

Issues:
- Disposal of appeals by Commissioner (A) and subsequent appeal to Tribunal
- Short reversal of CENVAT Credit under Rule 6(3A)(b)(iii) of CCR 2004
- Alleged irregularities and discrepancies in CENVAT Credit
- Barred by limitation under Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944
- Compliance with procedural requirements of law
- Need for remand with specific findings on merit and limitation

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) remanding 13 appeals to the original authority. The Tribunal had earlier disposed of 11 appeals in favor of the appellant. The two remaining appeals were de-linked due to different issues not addressed by the Commissioner (A) related to short reversal of CENVAT Credit under Rule 6(3A)(b)(iii) of CCR 2004. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, faced allegations of irregular CENVAT Credit and failure to reverse credit as per the prescribed formula. The Commissioner (A) did not pass a speaking order on this issue, leading to the current appeals.

The appellant argued that the impugned order remanding the cases was legally unsustainable. They contended that the demand, mainly based on the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4), was time-barred. The appellant claimed compliance with procedural requirements, including timely filing of returns and maintaining necessary documents. The revenue authorities were aware of the appellant's compliance with CENVAT Credit reversal rules since 2011, supported by regular intimation letters and acknowledgments.

The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and found merit in the appellant's arguments. It acknowledged the lack of findings by the Commissioner (A) on the issues in the two appeals, emphasizing the need for specific determinations on merit and limitation. Concluding that most of the demand was time-barred without any intentional tax evasion, the Tribunal remanded both appeals to the Commissioner (A) for further consideration. The Commissioner (A) was directed to provide specific findings within two months, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles and granting the appellant an opportunity to present supporting documents.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of CENVAT Credit reversal, compliance with procedural requirements, and the application of the limitation period under the Central Excise Act. It emphasized the necessity of detailed findings by the Commissioner (A) and allowed the appeals to be remanded for a fair review within a specified timeframe.