2017 (10) TMI 437 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - disputed goods were used for manufacture of the capital goods and repair and maintenance of the capital goods - other items were purely used as structural items - present matter is a remand to adjudicating authority - Held that - the adjudicating authority has not specifically referred to the observations made in the report dated 24.01.2014 that substantial quality of the disputed goods were used for manufacture of capital goods and for repair of capital goods within the factory; and that wherever the disputed goods were used for the purpose, other than of manufacture and repair, the appellant had not availed any Cenvat credit. However, in the remand proceedings also, the adjudicating authority has not dealt with the issue, for which, the matter was specifically remanded to him. The verification report dated 24.01.2014 cannot be discarded at this juncture, inasmuch as the ld. Adjudicating Authority has not specifically addressed the issue and has not based his findings on any additional documents/ records in this context - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit by the adjudicating authority.
2. Verification reports submitted by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent not considered.
3. Failure of the adjudicating authority to address specific issues on remand.
4. Disallowance of Cenvat benefit without proper verification.
5. Onus of proof on the appellant regarding the nature of use of disputed goods.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant by the adjudicating authority. In the initial round, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh decision based on a verification report by the Dy. Commissioner. The appellant argued that the disputed goods were used for manufacturing and repair of capital goods, supported by reports and registers. The appellant cited relevant case law to support their claim that the disputed goods should be considered for Cenvat Credit. On the contrary, the respondent contended that the appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove the nature of use of disputed goods. The respondent emphasized that the definition of input during the disputed period excluded the disputed goods from Cenvat benefit.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not adequately consider the verification reports submitted by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. The authority failed to address specific issues as directed during the remand proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had maintained records and registers certifying the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on disputed goods. As the authority did not base its findings on additional documents or records, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of Cenvat benefit was unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of proper verification and consideration of relevant reports and records in Cenvat Credit disputes. It underscores the necessity for adjudicating authorities to address specific issues as directed during remand proceedings and emphasizes the onus of proof on appellants to substantiate claims regarding the nature of use of disputed goods.