2016 (8) TMI 942 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the respondent had correctly discharged the obligation under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and whether the Tribunal is correct in deleting the mandatory penalty - Held that - the order impugned in this appeal, has to be set aside and that the Tribunal should revisit and adjudge certain points for consideration. Both the learned counsel for the parties, have consented for the order impugned in Final Order No.41001/2014 dated 11.12.2014 passed by CESTAT, Chennai - 600 006 to be set aside and the matter be remanded for adjudication. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of Cenvat credit on molasses
- Imposition of interest and penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Appeal filed before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
- Questions of law raised in the appeal
- Consideration of separate accounts for dutiable and non-dutiable goods
- Application of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Liability to pay 10% of the value of certain goods
- Consent for remand and re-adjudication

Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court of Madras pertains to a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal. The appeal involved the disallowance of Cenvat credit on molasses by the original authority, the imposition of interest and penalty under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and subsequent dismissal of the appeal by CESTAT, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal included the correctness of the discharge of obligations under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the deletion of mandatory penalty. The High Court, after hearing both parties, concluded that the impugned order needed to be set aside for further consideration. The Court suggested a remand to the Tribunal for re-adjudication on specific points related to the maintenance of separate accounts for dutiable and non-dutiable goods, application of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the liability to pay 10% of the value of certain goods.

Both parties consented to the remand for adjudication on the identified points, including the reversal of Cenvat credit on exempted goods, the error in directing payment based on finished goods value, and the applicability of rules to the manufacturing of specific products. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a re-examination of the issues in accordance with the law, with no order as to costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural rules and the correct application of statutory provisions in matters concerning Cenvat credit and duty payment obligations.