9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 246 - HC - Central ExciseAvailment of CENVAT credit without physically receiving the raw material - limited remand - HELD THAT - The order of the tribunal dated 09.07.2007 is unambiguous that the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner for reconsideration. There were no strings attached to the remand. The contention that the Tribunal decided the issues on merits, does not enhance the case of the respondent. The tribunal proceeded to decided the issues on basis that conditions of remand were not complied with and this was bound to effect the conclusions arrived at - The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 35 (G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding availing CENVAT credit without physically receiving raw material.
The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of Formaldehyde and Thinner. An inspection in 2002 revealed that the respondent was availing CENVAT credit without physically receiving raw material. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to consider evidence of payments and duty payments through banking channels. Subsequently, a reiteration of the demand was made in 2008, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal in 2017, prompting the present appeal. The substantial question of law was whether the effect of the Tribunal's 2007 order was a limited remand. The appellant argued that the remand was for reconsideration without specific directions, while the respondent contended that the appeal issues were decided on merits as well, not solely on the limited remand basis. The High Court clarified that the 2007 remand order was unambiguous, directing reconsideration without any specific limitations. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision on the appeal was influenced by the non-compliance with the conditions of the remand, leading to the impugned order being set aside and the matter remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal was instructed to proceed with the appeal without being influenced by the previous order and to expedite the decision process, considering the inspection took place in 2002. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for a fresh consideration of the case by the Tribunal.
|
