2020 (9) TMI 987 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Reverse charge Mechanism - service provider or not - manufacturer of goods having nil tariff rate of duty - HELD THAT - The issues involved in the present appeal were considered by the Tribunal and the appeals filed by the appellant were allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals). Pursuant to the remand direction of the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) took-up de novo proceedings and passed the order dated 17.10.2018 in favour of the appellant, by granting the refund benefit. Since, the appellant submits that the issue arising out of the present dispute is identical to the facts and the issues decided in the orders referred above, the present appeal should also be allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a manufacturer paying service tax under reverse charge mechanism can be considered a service provider.
2. Whether a manufacturer of goods with a 'nil' tariff rate of duty is eligible for Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported finished goods during the disputed period and filed a refund claim application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it could not utilize the Cenvat credit due to duty exemption on exports. The adjudicating authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund application. The Tribunal considered the issues raised in the appeal, focusing on whether the appellant, paying service tax under reverse charge mechanism, could be termed a service provider and if a manufacturer of goods with 'nil' tariff rate of duty is eligible for Cenvat credit. The appellant cited previous orders where similar issues were decided in their favor, leading to a refund benefit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration in line with the previous orders. The appellant was granted a personal hearing opportunity before the fresh decision. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for a fresh decision on the merits, following the precedents set in earlier orders.