2014 (11) TMI 425 - HC - Central Excise

MODVAT credit - Validity of Tribunal s order - tribunal rejected the appeal without addressing the specific plea of the assessee - Held that - Even though a specific plea has been raised by the appellant in this regard, in paragraph (3) of the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal has simply brushed aside the plea saying that the assessee s appeal does not contain any challenge on this ground. Therefore, there is a clear non application of mind by the Tribunal in this regard. Though the notification is referred to by the Tribunal as Notification No.67/97, dated 16.3.1997, the actual notification is bearing No.67/95, dated 16.3.1995. The Tribunal discarded the above said legal plea stating that none of these contentions has been substantiated by them. We find no reason is given by the Tribunal on the legal plea raised by the appellant. The Tribunal has merely stated that there is no merit in the assessee s case. We find that the order of the Tribunal is bereft of reasons and there is no analysis of the question of law raised before them. In our considered opinion, on this score also the order of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Chargeability to duty without removal of excisable goods.
2. Completion of manufacture when goods are marketable.
3. Retrospective operation of Notification No.67/95.
4. Tribunal's consideration of applicable notification.
5. Permissibility of demand under extended limitation period without clandestine removal.
6. Tribunal's confirmation of demand based on available facts.
7. Availability of input credit for export goods.
8. Imposition of penalty without specific rule mention.
9. Rejection of appeal without considering each submission.

Analysis:
1. The appeal questioned the chargeability to duty under the Central Excise Act without the removal of excisable goods under specific rules. The department suspected misuse of MODVAT credit and evasion of duty by the appellant, leading to a show cause notice with detailed issues to address the alleged violations.

2. The Tribunal considered various aspects of the case, including the admissibility of MODVAT credit on specific inputs used in manufacturing exempted products. The Commissioner's order demanded duty amounts and imposed penalties based on findings of misuse of credit schemes and duty evasion by the appellant.

3. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision on multiple grounds, including the correctness of credit reversal for specific coils and the duty demand related to tools and dyes not exempted during a certain period. Legal arguments were presented regarding the retrospective operation of a notification and the Tribunal's failure to provide adequate reasoning for its decisions.

4. The High Court found deficiencies in the Tribunal's analysis and reasoning, noting instances where legal pleas raised by the appellant were not adequately addressed. The Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of all legal arguments presented by the appellant, emphasizing the need for a thorough review based on the legal issues raised.

5. The Court did not provide a definitive answer to the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, opting instead to allow the Tribunal to reconsider the case in light of the legal arguments presented. The decision highlighted the importance of proper reasoning and consideration of all legal aspects in reaching a judgment, indicating a lack of thoroughness in the Tribunal's previous evaluation.