2019 (10) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input invoices for the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 - HELD THAT - The Appellants, prima facie, produced communications with the Department from time to time indicating that all these documents have been filed with the Department. However, the Adjudicating authority recorded a finding otherwise - To resolve the issue, it is appropriate to remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority with the specific direction to consider the documents that were produced earlier and also the documents that would be produced during the course of de-novo proceedings including the Chartered Accountant s certificate that have been produced to ascertain the admissibility of the CENVAT Credit. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing of CENVAT Credit without producing relevant documents.
2. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-production of evidence.
3. Remand by Bombay High Court to the Appellate Tribunal for consideration.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the Appellants availing CENVAT Credit of ?6,33,344 on various input services during 2008-09 to 2011-12 without producing relevant documents. The Appellants failed to provide supporting documents during an EA 2000 Audit, leading to a show cause notice for recovery of the credit with interest and penalty. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty upon adjudication, which was challenged through an appeal.

2. The learned Authorised Representative of the Company contended that all relevant documents supporting the availed CENVAT Credit were submitted during the Audit and adjudication. She argued that despite submitting the necessary input invoices, both lower authorities incorrectly concluded that the documents were not produced, resulting in the rejection of the credit. The Appellants claimed that the CENVAT Credit was rightfully availed based on valid documents provided during the relevant period.

3. The Revenue's representative stated that the Appellants failed to produce the required documents before the Adjudicating authority, leading to the inadmissibility of the credit and confirmation of the recovery notice. The Revenue had no objection to remanding the case back to the Adjudicating authority for further review.

4. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, identified the key issue as determining whether the Appellants were entitled to the CENVAT Credit on the input invoices. Despite the Appellants' claim of submitting documents to the Department, the Adjudicating authority had a different finding. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating authority with specific directions to consider all previously submitted documents and any new evidence, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate, to assess the admissibility of the CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal instructed for the de-novo proceedings to be completed within two months to expedite the resolution after eight years of pending litigation.

5. In conclusion, the Appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of all documents to determine the admissibility of the CENVAT Credit, ensuring a fair and timely resolution of the matter.