2024 (1) TMI 516 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Excise Duty paid on the de-bonded inputs / raw materials and the duty paid on the capital goods - HELD THAT - The Order-in-Original is very silent on all the documents claimed to have been furnished by the appellant. There is also no denial insofar as the merger of M/s. SGM with the appellant is concerned, nor is there any denial as to the availability of unutilized CENVAT Credit with M/s. SGM that came to be transferred to the appellant. The matter, however, required verification of records per se and nothing beyond that; if the records support the claims of the appellant, then there is nothing to be done. Though much water has flown, in the interests of justice, the matter requires re-adjudication since what is required is the verification of the documents vis- -vis the claim of the appellant, which can only be done by the original authority - The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the denial of CENVAT Credit to the appellant and the justification of such denial in the eye of the law.

Denial of CENVAT Credit:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem. The case involved the merger of M/s. Sri Gugan Mills (SGM), an Export Oriented Unit, with the appellant. The total credit amount of Rs.31,26,923/- was transferred to the appellant from SGM. Despite the appellant providing necessary details and documents, the Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to deny the CENVAT Credit. The Order-in-Original confirmed the proposals in the Show Cause Notice, leading to the appellant approaching the first appellate authority, which also upheld the original order. The appellant contended that all required details were furnished for verification, but the authorities failed to conduct proper verification, resulting in the demand for credit. The appellant argued that the Revenue's lack of verification should not penalize them, especially considering the age of the order. The Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal found that the Order-in-Original was silent on the documents submitted by the appellant and required verification to determine the veracity of the claims. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for re-adjudication. The original authority was directed to pass a speaking order after verifying the documents within sixty days from the receipt of the Tribunal's order.