2020 (2) TMI 39 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - procedural lapse - allegation of non-compliance with the condition 2 (h) of Notification No. 27/2012 CE (N.T) dated 18.06.2012 - CBEC Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 - HELD THAT - Since there is no finding by both the lower authorities on the debit entries effected by the appellant, matter requires re-adjudication because, it is for this reason that prompted the issuance of SCN which carried the allegation of non-compliance with the condition No. 2(h). If the debit/reversal of Cenvat Credit is effected, then it may amount to complying with the condition at 2 (h) of Notification ibid. But however, from the date of passing the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal vis- -vis the debit/reversal of Cenvat Credit, it appears that the Adjudicating Authority did not have the benefit of this documentary evidence. Matters are remanded back to the original authority to look into and verify the debit of Cenvat Credit and call for such other details in this regard, if required, and then pass a speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeals revolve around the refund claim under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that Show Cause Notices were issued based on an alleged non-compliance with condition 2 (h) of Notification No. 27/2012 CE (N.T) dated 18.06.2012. The appellant contended that debit entries made in March 2019 were in compliance with the said condition. The appellant further cited CBEC Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018, which endorsed decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court stating that refunds cannot be denied for procedural lapses.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' findings and highlighted the absence of any determination regarding the debit entries by both authorities. The Tribunal noted the lack of examination of the debit entries by the lower authorities, which prompted the issuance of Show Cause Notices alleging non-compliance with condition 2 (h) of the Notification. The Tribunal observed that if the debit or reversal of Cenvat Credit was executed, it could signify compliance with the condition. However, as the Adjudicating Authority did not consider this evidence during the original order, the matter necessitated re-adjudication.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the original authority for a detailed review of the debit of Cenvat Credit. The original authority was directed to scrutinize the debit entries, request additional information if necessary, and issue a comprehensive decision. The appellant was permitted to reference case laws, Circulars, and Notifications, including Notification No. 41/2012. Ultimately, all four appeals were allowed for remand, providing an opportunity for a thorough reevaluation of the refund claims under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.