9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1047 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - adjustment of duty paid on such returned goods against their liability - HELD THAT - In the impugned order the Commissioner (A) has not appreciated the facts properly and has not considered the factum of return of the goods and taking back the credit by the appellant - Since the impugned order is not clear and has not considered the material facts, therefore, in the interest of justice, the case remanded back to the original authority with a direction to the original authority to determine whether the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit of ₹ 17,02,316/- as claimed by the appellant under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of appellant's appeal by Commissioner (A) regarding duty payable and credit utilization. 2. Proper appreciation of facts and law by the Commissioner (A). 3. Eligibility of appellant for CENVAT credit under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Consideration of goods return and credit adjustment by the appellant. 5. Remand of the case for a fresh determination by the original authority. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (A) concerning duty payable and credit utilization. The appellant, a manufacturer of PCB assemblies, declared duty payable as &8377; 17,09,145/- in their ER-1 returns for February 2015. However, they paid only &8377; 6,827/- in the credit utilized column, claiming adjustment for certain returned goods without furnishing documents. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of &8377; 17,02,318/- along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal. 2. The consultant for the appellant argued that the impugned order lacked sustainability in law as it failed to appreciate the facts and law properly. He contended that the Commissioner (A) misunderstood the case and did not address the real issue. The appellant had detailed the chronological facts involving the export and return of PCB assemblies, adjustments made, and utilization of CENVAT credit. The consultant argued that there was no short payment of duty for February 2016, attributing any lapses to procedural errors that should not deny substantive benefits. 3. The consultant cited relevant legal precedents to support the appellant's position, emphasizing that the appellant had fulfilled the requirements of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He argued that the appellant was entitled to the CENVAT credit claimed and had correctly adjusted the duty payment against the demand for February, paying the differential amount of &8377; 6,829/- as per their ER1 returns. The consultant requested a remand to the original authority for a thorough verification of records and a fresh decision. 4. The Assistant Commissioner acknowledged the mixing of facts by the Commissioner (A) and agreed that the real issue had not been addressed. She expressed willingness for the matter to be remanded to the original authority for a new decision. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the impugned order lacked proper appreciation of facts and the return of goods by the appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the original authority to determine the appellant's eligibility for the claimed CENVAT credit under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and to assess any duty shortfall for February 2016 after considering the eligible credit. 5. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the original authority for a fresh determination was based on the need for a proper evaluation of the facts and compliance with the relevant legal provisions. The remand aimed to ensure a fair and just decision regarding the appellant's entitlement to the claimed CENVAT credit and any duty liabilities for the specified period. The case was remanded with specific directions for the original authority to conduct a detailed examination and issue a de novo order in light of the observations made by the Tribunal.
|
