2024 (4) TMI 784 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs and input services - disallowance of entire cenvat credit availed by the appellant on the inputs and input services utilized in the manufacture of goods on which central excise duty was paid and ER-1 returns were filed - HELD THAT - Revenue has unilaterally come to a conclusion without assigning any justification through the said show cause notice as to how the appellant was required to clear the goods under full exemption under serial No. 47A of N/N. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. As per the provisions of law Revenue should have issued the appellant with a show cause notice calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not clear the goods at nil rate of duty applying the provisions at serial No. 47A ibid. Such proceedings would have given complete opportunity to the appellant to explain as to why the said serial number of the said notification was not applicable to the appellant. Without giving any opportunity to the appellant to present their defence on the contention of Revenue that the appellant should have cleared the goods availing full exemption Revenue has unilaterally decided that the said serial number of the said notification was applicable to the appellant. These present proceedings are not sustainable - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the recovery of cenvat credit under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the eligibility of the appellant to avail certain notifications for central excise duty, and the demand for recovery of cenvat credit based on the applicability of a specific notification.

Recovery of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant, a manufacturer of bulk drugs, availed cenvat credit and paid duty on final products, most of which were exported under rebate. An audit report led to a show cause notice proposing the recovery of cenvat credit amounting to Rs.66,29,230 under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue contended that the appellant was not eligible for certain exemptions and, therefore, not entitled to the cenvat credit. The impugned order directed the recovery of the cenvat credit and imposed a penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Eligibility for Exemptions:
The appellant argued that their bulk drugs were not covered under a specific notification and, therefore, the question of applicability did not arise. They further contended that the Revenue unilaterally decided their eligibility for exemptions without proper justification. The appellant had previously been allowed a rebate for exported goods, and a separate proceeding had ruled in their favor regarding the payment of central excise duty. The Revenue failed to provide evidence or reasoning for considering the goods under the specific notification.

Judgment:
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had sought to disallow the entire cenvat credit without proper justification or opportunity for the appellant to defend against the allegations. The Revenue unilaterally concluded the applicability of a specific notification without following due process. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, deeming the proceedings unsustainable.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 16. 04. 2024)