2022 (7) TMI 1175 - AT - Central Excise

Wrongful availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant - recovery as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A (5) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - submission of relevant documentary evidences by the appellant at any point of time - HELD THAT - The submission made by learned Authorised Representative seems to be reasonable as the demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority only on the ground that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their submission. Therefore without going into the merits of the appeal, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. But what is gathered from the impugned order is that the documents filed by the appellant on 05.03.2015/13.05.2015 were not available with the Adjudicating Authority, for whatever reason. Therefore, the appellant is directed to file all the relevant documentary evidence with the Adjudicating Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, in support of their submission qua the demand of the amount of Rs. 15,50,625/- as the Adjudicating Authority is the proper Authority to examine the documentary evidences. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to decide the issue involved herein afresh after taking into consideration the documentary evidence to be produced by the appellant in support of their submission and after following the principle of natural justice. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the confirmation of demand of Rs. 15,50,625 in the Order-in-Original dated 20/04/2021.
2. Wrongful availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant and recovery under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A (5) of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was limited to challenging the confirmation of a demand of Rs. 15,50,625 as per the Order-in-Original dated 20/04/2021. The Commissioner had dropped the rest of the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 08/05/2015, which was not challenged by the Revenue, thus attaining finality.

2. The main issue in the appeal was the wrongful availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant and the recovery of the same under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with section 11A (5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. During the proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 15,50,625 only, out of the total demand raised in the show cause notice. The appellant claimed to have submitted relevant documentary evidence supporting their case, but the Authority stated that these documents were not available. The appellant was directed to file all relevant documentary evidence within two weeks for a fresh examination by the Adjudicating Authority, ensuring the principle of natural justice is followed.

4. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a reevaluation after considering the documentary evidence to be produced by the appellant. The Authority was instructed to decide the issue within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of proper examination of evidence and adherence to procedural fairness.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the arguments presented by both parties, and the decision to remand the matter for further examination based on the availability of documentary evidence.