2018 (7) TMI 413 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - inputs removed as such - reversal of lesser amount than that of the actual amount availed on the inputs - Held that - he Commissioner (Appeals) had given details of Purchase and Sale of the inputs during the relevant period. The Commissioner (Appeals) had merely proceeded on the basis of the statements/documents filed by the assessee and no verification was conducted - the case should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of verification - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal and cross objection, Allegation of irregular CENVAT credit utilization, Adjudication order set aside by Commissioner (Appeals), Lack of verification by Commissioner (Appeals), Remand for verification of purchase and sale of inputs.

Delay in filing appeal and cross objection:
The appellant (Revenue) filed a misc. application for condoning a nine-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed. The respondent assessee also filed a misc. application for condoning the delay in filing the cross objection, which was also allowed. Both applications were disposed of, and with the consent of both sides, the appeal was taken up for hearing.

Allegation of irregular CENVAT credit utilization:
The case involved the assessee, engaged in manufacturing various products, allegedly irregularly utilizing CENVAT credit during March 2006 to October 2009. The Adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of &8377;12,08,630/- along with interest and imposed a penalty equal to the CENVAT credit amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, leading to the Revenue filing the appeal and the assessee filing a cross objection.

Adjudication order set aside by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order, stating that the allegation against the assessee regarding selling imported inputs as such was not conclusively supported by the records. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner did not conduct an enquiry or verify the documents submitted by the assessee. The Revenue also highlighted the lack of examination of document genuineness by the First Appellate Authority.

Lack of verification by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the statements and documents provided by the assessee without conducting any verification. The Revenue did not challenge the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) or address the aspect of limitation in their appeal.

Remand for verification of purchase and sale of inputs:
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not verify the purchase and sale of inputs during the relevant period. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for proper verification after giving the assessee a fair hearing. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order in accordance with the law. The cross objection was disposed of accordingly.