2020 (4) TMI 38 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of Excise Duty - delivery charges of the liquid gas - denial of Cenavt credit availed on ISD invoices - HELD THAT - The Commissioner, in the impugned order, has decided that the inclusion of delivery charges in the assessable value of service in favour of the appellant. The computation of the Cenvat credit in respect of five services, which is disputed need to be re-quantified by the adjudicating authority on the basis of available documents required for such credit. For claim of benefit of the proportionate Cenvat credit, same is required to be looked into afresh in terms of their eligibility and calculation. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-compute the demand after hearing the appellant within three months from the receipt of the order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay Central Excise duty on delivery charges of liquid gas
2. Correctness of denial of Cenvat credit on ISD invoices

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal previously directed the adjudicating authority to decide on the liability of the appellant to pay Central Excise duty on delivery charges of liquid gas and the correctness of denial of Cenvat credit on ISD invoices. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, included delivery charges in the assessable value of service in favor of the appellant. However, regarding Cenvat credit, the demand confirmed was disputed by the appellant. The Commissioner found certain services ineligible for Cenvat credit, including catering-facility management, traveling, construction services, insurance, and corporate services-travel management. The appellant contested the demand amount, providing a different calculation based on documents submitted to the adjudicating authority.

2. The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that the total demand for the disputed services should be restricted to a specific amount, differing significantly from the original demand. The appellant claimed that the reversal of Cenvat credit had been done on a proportionate basis for the five services in question. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant had not provided a complete breakdown of the calculations to the adjudicating authority. It was suggested that the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a re-quantification of the Cenvat credit involved in the disputed services.

3. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal agreed that the computation of Cenvat credit for the disputed services needed to be re-evaluated by the adjudicating authority based on the available documents required for such credit. The Tribunal emphasized the need to reassess the eligibility and calculation of the proportionate Cenvat credit claimed by the appellant. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a re-computation of the demand after allowing the appellant to present their case within three months from the receipt of the order.