9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 248 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit - non-receipt of inputs - HELD THAT - The issue, investigation/ allegation in the present case are prima facie common as appearing in the case decided by this Tribunal in SANTRAM METALS ALLOYS PVT LTD AND NAVRATANLAL SHARMA VERSUS C.C.E S.T., -AHMEDABAD-III 2022 (6) TMI 912 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that The allegation of the Revenue that the appellant have not received the inputs made against the appellant are not sustainable and thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Since the case involved facts as well as legal issue the entire matter needs to reconsidered taking cognizance of this Tribunal s order dated 20.06.2022. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for passing fresh after providing sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.
Issues:
1. Recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit. 2. Liability of previous firm in case of contravention. 3. Adjudication of show cause notice. 4. Appeal against impugned orders. 5. Sustainability of demand in the present case. 6. Reconsideration of the matter based on previous Tribunal order. Analysis: 1. The case involved a show cause notice issued for the recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit by M/s Santram Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The duty demand was confirmed, penalties were imposed on the appellant and other related individuals. The appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT against the order dated 13.10.2008. The Tribunal granted unconditional stay and emphasized the need to raise the demand against the previous firm responsible for the contravention. 2. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to M/s Omkar Metal & Alloys for the recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit. The matter was remanded by the Tribunal for joint adjudication of liabilities for both appellants. The Commissioner confirmed cenvat demands against both parties, which were appealed. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, leading to the initiation of the present proceedings. 3. During the proceedings, the appellant argued that a similar issue had been decided in their favor by the Tribunal in a previous order dated 20.06.2022. The appellant contended that based on the previous order, the demand in the present case was not sustainable. 4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Superintendent (AR) reiterated their positions. The Member (Judicial) carefully considered the submissions and records. It was noted that the issue and allegations in the present case were prima facie common with the case decided in the previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed for remand to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration, ensuring sufficient opportunity for personal hearing to the appellants. 5. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 23.12.2022 by Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad. The decision highlighted the importance of reconsidering the matter based on the previous Tribunal order to ensure a fair and just adjudication process.
|
