2017 (2) TMI 58 - HC - Central Excise

Reversal of Cenvat credit - Notification No.10/1997 dated 01.03.1997 - Held that - There is no dispute about the fact that University of Horticulture Sciences is covered by the said expression and thus the good supplied to the said university would get covered by the Notification in question - When the issue was only limited to the entitlement of exemption available to the appellant assessee or not, the Tribunal ought to have limited its judicial scrutin y to that extent only. The Tribunal Could have examined the aspects only in two contingencies. (1) if there was any cross appeal by the Department, which was not there; and (2) such aspects was also examined by the first authority, which had issued the show cause notice - In our view, the observations of the Tribunal were beyond the subject matter of the appeal and could be said as exceeding the power of the Tribunal, more particularly, when there was no cross appeal by the Department. It further appears that the Tribunal did not only relegate the authority to examine the said aspects but has made a concluding observations that as a consequence of the exemption available, the assessee would not be entitled to the cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs used in the manufacture of DG Sets - If the matter is to be examined limited to the question formulated, it can be said that the aforesaid observations made by the Tribunal are exceeding the scope of the appeal - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the observations made by the Tribunal regarding the entitlement of Cenvat Credit by the appellant and the reversal of input Cenvat Credit in the absence of objections/Appeal from the respondent department or in the Appeal memo of the Appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Observations by the Tribunal:
The appellant, a party-in-person/assessee, appealed against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order related to the availability of exemption on Diesel Generating Sets (DG sets) sold to Horticulture University. The Tribunal, in its observations, raised questions regarding the entitlement of Cenvat Credit by the appellant, beyond the scope of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the exemption was available to the appellant but made additional observations on Cenvat Credit entitlement, prompting the appellant to challenge these observations.

2. Entitlement of Exemption:
The appellant contended that exemption was available under the Central Excise Notification for selling DG sets to the Horticulture University. The authorities issued a Show-Cause notice questioning the exemption availed, leading to a demand for duty payment. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the benefits of the Notification, imposing duty, interest, and a penalty. The Appellate Authority upheld the duty but waived the penalty. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, allowed the appeal partially by confirming the exemption but made observations on Cenvat Credit entitlement, which the appellant disputed.

3. Tribunal's Jurisdiction:
The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's observations went beyond the appeal's scope, as the issue was limited to the entitlement of exemption. There was no cross-appeal by the Department, and the first authority did not address the alternative aspects of liability or Cenvat Credit reversal. The Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its power by making observations on Cenvat Credit without proper grounds, especially in the absence of a cross-appeal.

4. Conclusion and Disposition:
The Court concluded that the Tribunal's observations were unjustified and exceeded the scope of the appeal. As a result, the appeal was successful in favor of the assessee against the revenue. The Tribunal's observations were deemed unsustainable. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, and ancillary matters were also resolved accordingly.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the Tribunal's observations, the entitlement of exemption, the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and the final conclusion and disposition by the High Court.