2018 (4) TMI 1494 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - case of appellant is that without taking any cognizance of documentary evidence submitted, the appeal has been dismissed which is against law - Held that - appellant have submitted the chart showing credit balances and credit available as per ledger for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 along with copy of documents - the Lower Authorities have not properly appreciated the above documents and submission made by the appellant as far as admissibility of Cenvat credit is concerned - matter is remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Availment of Cenvat credit on Service Tax, Dismissal of appeal by Lower Authority, Time bar on demand for credit availed in March 2013.

Analysis:

1. Availment of Cenvat credit on Service Tax: The appellant, a manufacturer of TMT Bars, MS Angles & Billets, availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax amounting to ?8,24,035 during March to October 2013. The appellant submitted that the credit was availed on invoices of input services, specifically on GTA input and other input services. They provided copies of bills, challans, and ledger accounts to support their claim. The appellant argued that a clerical error resulted in the incorrect showing of credit utilization in the ER-1 returns, while the ledger and invoices accurately reflected the available credit. The Tribunal found that the Lower Authorities did not properly consider the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication after a thorough review of the documents and submissions.

2. Dismissal of appeal by Lower Authority: Despite the appellant providing detailed documentation supporting their claim for Cenvat credit, the Lower Authority dismissed the appeal without adequately considering the evidence presented. The Tribunal observed that the Lower Authorities failed to appreciate the chart showing credit balances, credit available as per ledger, and other supporting documents submitted by the appellant. In light of this, the Tribunal concluded that the dismissal of the appeal was unjust and set aside the impugned order, directing a re-adjudication by the Original Adjudicating Authority.

3. Time bar on demand for credit availed in March 2013: The appellant contended that the demand for the Cenvat credit availed in March 2013 was time-barred. While the Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in its decision, it acknowledged the appellant's argument regarding the limitation period. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication implies that the issue of time bar on the demand for credit availed in March 2013 will need to be revisited during the re-examination of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority must provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case before making a decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case highlights the importance of thoroughly examining documentary evidence and providing a fair opportunity for parties to present their arguments in matters concerning the availment of Cenvat credit on Service Tax. The decision to remand the case for re-adjudication underscores the need for a comprehensive review of all relevant documents and submissions to ensure a just outcome.