2021 (8) TMI 42 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs - inputs sold without reversal of the credit as per Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - The facts would disclose that the appellant was bonafide pursuing his appeal remedy before the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/20597/2015-SM challenging the order dated 17.11.2014 remanding the case to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the limited issue of the quantum of credit availed. In the meanwhile, the adjudicating authority in terms of the order dated 25.02.2016 granted the relief to the appellant, which forced the appellant to withdraw the appeal of the order DURAG INDIA INSTRUMENTATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE 2018 (2) TMI 1894 - CESTAT BANGALORE before the Tribunal - The department challenged the order of the adjudicating authority dated 25.02.2016 before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) who in terms of the order dated 13.10.2017 set aside the order dated 25.02.2016 as the order exceeded the terms of remand and further remitted the case back to the Original Authority to follow the directions passed in Appeal of M/S DURAG INDIA INSTRUMENTATION PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU WEST 2019 (6) TMI 64 - CESTAT BANGALORE . Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to final order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding CENVAT credit availed on inputs sold without being used in final product manufacturing.

Analysis:
The appellant imported inputs, availed CENVAT credit, and later sold the inputs without utilizing them in manufacturing the final product, resulting in a discrepancy. The department alleged that the appellant failed to reverse the CENVAT credit as required by Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. A show cause notice was issued demanding the reversal of CENVAT credit along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to the appellant filing a first appeal challenging the order.

The first appeal directed a re-examination of the quantum of credit availed on the inputs sold, resulting in the remittance of the case back to the adjudicating authority. Subsequently, the appellant withdrew the appeal following relief granted by the adjudicating authority. However, the department appealed the authority's decision, leading to a series of legal proceedings and appeals challenging the orders issued.

The appellant's attempts to challenge the orders were met with rejection by the Tribunal on the grounds of withdrawal without reserving liberty, leaving the appellant with no further remedy. In light of the circumstances, the High Court set aside the orders and remitted the case for proper adjudication before the Original Authority, allowing all contentions to be raised by the parties.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the final order and remitting the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration on merits and appropriate orders.