2022 (12) TMI 906 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground of alleged irregular availment of CENVAT Credit and demanding of duty thereon - HELD THAT - The Original Authority has not followed the directions of this Bench inasmuch as there was a specific direction by this Bench to take into account the submissions, etc., in paragraph 2 and 3 of the said order, which refers to various judicial pronouncements. Moreover, there is also an observation that in respect of two of the judicial pronouncements, the facts were more or less similar to the one in the case on hand. The Bench further permitted the appellant to produce any additional evidence, in support, but the same was not a direction. There are no reference to the binding precedents contained in such judicial pronouncements and moreover, there are merit in the contentions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that the job description in the work order was referring to operational and maintenance charge for dry fly ash collection system , which is contrary to the conclusion drawn by the Adjudicating Authority at paragraph 14.5 of the Order-in-Original dated 23.02.2021. The Order-in-Original cannot stand as the same is passed not only without adhering to the directions of this Bench, but also omitting to properly take note of the contents / job description in the work orders reproduced by him. In view of the above serious irregularity in the Order-in-Original, the impugned order which has sustained the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is once again restored to the file of the Adjudicating Authority who shall pass a speaking order as per law after granting reasonable opportunities to the appellant and since the matter pertains to an earlier period which has travelled twice before this forum, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a de novo order within a time-frame of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order by the respective Commissionerate. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Denial of CENVAT Credit and Duty Demand

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Madurai, upholding the denial of CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant. The appellant's advocate referred to previous orders and judicial pronouncements, highlighting the need for the Adjudicating Authority to consider submissions and evidence. The advocate argued that the denial of CENVAT Credit was unjustified as the Adjudicating Authority did not adhere to the directions given by the forum. The Revenue's Additional Commissioner supported the lower authorities' findings, stating that the appellant failed to provide supporting documents as directed. The main issue was the denial of CENVAT Credit and the demand for duty based on alleged irregularities.

The Tribunal noted that the Original Authority did not follow the forum's directions to consider submissions and judicial precedents. The de novo order lacked references to binding precedents and failed to address the job description in the work order accurately. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's advocate that the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion contradicted the job description in the work order. Due to serious irregularities in the Order-in-Original, the impugned order upholding it was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a new order within 90 days, granting the appellant reasonable opportunities to present their case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter for a fresh adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law, considering all relevant aspects and evidence presented by the appellant. The appellant was instructed to cooperate in the new adjudication proceedings, and all contentions were left open for further consideration.