2016 (9) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - service tax paid on the Commercial and Industrial Construction Services by the service provider while constructing the Pant Nagar plant of appellant - Pant Nagar plant is paying excise duty on the goods which are deemed to be manufactured by them in their plant - Held that - it is found that the Commissioner (Central Excise & Service Tax), LTU, has not examined the issue completely and in proper perspective. Therefore, the issue needs reconsideration by the Commissioner as regards various claims of the appellant. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of a letter as an order for appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Claim for availment of cenvat credit on goods manufactured at Pant Nagar plant.
3. Examination of the issue by the Commissioner.
4. Remand of the issue back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal deliberated on whether a letter from the Commissioner rejecting the appellant's claim can be considered an order for appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had conducted a personal hearing and considered written submissions before issuing the letter. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the letter, being detrimental to the appellant's financial interest, is indeed a decision subject to appeal.

2. Moving on to the merits of the case, the appellant sought cenvat credit based on the premise that the Pant Nagar plant pays excise duty on goods deemed to be manufactured there. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had not thoroughly examined the issue and lacked a comprehensive perspective. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that a more detailed consideration of the appellant's claims was necessary.

3. In light of the above, the Tribunal set aside the impugned letter and remanded the issue back to the Commissioner for Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai. The Commissioner was directed to reevaluate the matter, ensuring a thorough examination and adherence to the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner was further instructed to resolve the matter within three months from the date of receiving the Tribunal's order.

4. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of with the Tribunal's decision to remand the issue for reconsideration by the Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a comprehensive review of the appellant's claims and the necessity for a speaking order to be issued by the Commissioner after due process.