2016 (12) TMI 714 - AT - Central Excise

Opportunity of being heard - ld. Counsel says that both the EOU Unit and DTA unit were located at the same premises. When the dispute arose what that was debited in the DTA unit in respect of Cenvat credit has been claimed as relatable amount in the EOU unit. This aspect is totally ignored in the impugned order. Whereas, that was substantiated from the aforesaid extracts from the SCN - Held that - Since adjudication record is not available for verification as well as the records which has initiated the SCN dated 28.03.2011 not available before the Tribunal, only for a limited purpose, the matter is remanded to the ld. Adjudicating authority to examine the pleading as above, and reach to a proper conclusion. Since the amount involved is very small and the assesse has already undergone suffering from the year 2010, it would be preferable for the authority to issue notice for the resolution of the dispute within a month of receipt of this order and recording the pleadings of the appellant as well as taking into account the evidence led as well as material facts into consideration shall pass appropriate order within three months from the last date of hearing - The authority shall grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant to plead its defence both on fact and law before passing a reasoned and speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Double taxation due to disputed Cenvat credit availed by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to an amount of ?6,05,547/-, which was the subject matter of a Show Cause Notice dated 28.03.2011. The authority alleged that the appellant had wrongly availed Cenvat credit of ?43,89,017/- on common input services, exceeding the eligible amount of ?33,05,072. However, the appellant had already paid ?6,05,547/- towards the excess credit availed.

2. The impugned order indicated that the appellant was exposed to double taxation, as the excess credit availed by the DTA unit was being sought to be recovered despite the amount of ?6,05,547/- already debited by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the EOU unit and DTA unit were located at the same premises, and the disputed amount debited in the DTA unit was claimed as a relatable amount in the EOU unit. This crucial aspect was overlooked in the impugned order.

3. Due to the unavailability of the adjudication record for verification and the records initiating the Show Cause Notice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-examination. The Tribunal directed the authority to consider the appellant's submissions, examine the evidence, and material facts, and issue a proper order within three months from the last date of hearing. The authority was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present its defense both on facts and law.

4. Considering the small amount involved and the appellant's past suffering since 2010, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a swift resolution of the dispute. The authority was urged to issue a notice for resolution promptly, record the appellant's pleadings, consider the evidence, and pass a reasoned order within the stipulated timeframe, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of addressing the issue of double taxation arising from disputed Cenvat credit diligently and fairly, emphasizing the need for a thorough re-examination by the adjudicating authority to ensure a just outcome for the appellant.