2015 (8) TMI 820 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that - Main appellant had availed various amounts as CENVAT Credit which is sought to be disallowed in these proceedings. In our considered view, the issue needs reconsideration in the hands of the adjudicating authority in as much as, vide our Final Order 2014 (10) TMI 809 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , and some connected matters in respect of the very same assessee-appellant herein, this Bench had taken a view as to whether the factories to be considered as separate entities or one entity. In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the Bench in Order dt.27.10.2014 may have some implications on the issue in these two appeals. Since this order dt.27.10.2014 was not available with the adjudicating authority, we consider it fit to set aside the impugned order before us and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the views expressed by this Bench in final order dt.27.10.2014. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Availment of CENVAT Credit intra-division.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD pertains to two appeals challenging Order-in-Original No.01-05/Dem/2012, dt.28.09.2012. The issue at hand revolves around the availment of CENVAT Credit intra-division. The Revenue contends that the main appellant, after obtaining common registration for its divisions, later sought separate registration for three factories. During this transition, the main appellant availed CENVAT Credit, which the Revenue seeks to disallow. The Tribunal notes that a previous order, Final Order No.A/11805-11835/2014, had addressed the question of whether the factories should be considered separate entities or one entity. Given the potential impact of this previous order on the current issue, the Tribunal deems it necessary to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration in light of the views expressed in the prior order. The Tribunal clarifies that no observations on the case's merits have been made, leaving all issues open for the adjudicating authority to reexamine during de-novo proceedings while emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice.

In its analysis, the Tribunal highlights the significance of a prior order, Final Order No.A/11805-11835/2014, which addressed a similar issue concerning the same appellant. The Tribunal acknowledges the potential implications of the findings in the previous order on the current appeals and deems it essential for the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the earlier decision. By setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case, the Tribunal ensures that the adjudicating authority can review the issue with a comprehensive understanding of the views expressed in the prior order. This approach underscores the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring a thorough and fair assessment of the matter, guided by legal precedents and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal's decision to remand the appeals to the adjudicating authority underscores the importance of a comprehensive review of the issue at hand. By referencing a previous order that dealt with a similar question regarding the appellant's divisions, the Tribunal emphasizes the need for consistency and coherence in addressing such matters. The Tribunal's directive for a fresh consideration of the issue reflects a commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring a just and informed decision-making process. Additionally, by refraining from making any observations on the case's merits, the Tribunal maintains impartiality and leaves room for the adjudicating authority to conduct a thorough examination of all relevant aspects during the de-novo proceedings, with a focus on upholding natural justice principles.