M/S. Agni Steels (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem
- CitationAppeal No.35 & 36/2012-CEX.,, dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Ex
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where the law on the eligibility of Cenvat credit for inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods, or in the construction of a plant and installation of machinery, has developed after the adjudication order was passed, the assessee is entitled to a fresh hearing on the claimed items of input and on the other issues arising from the show-cause notice, so that the adjudicating authority may decide them afresh in light of the subsequent decisions of the higher courts and tribunals cited. An adjudicating authority remanding a matter for fresh decision must hear the assessee on all issues, both of fact and of law and on the evidence, and must frame the issues properly and pass a reasoned and speaking order that considers the cited decisions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No.35 & 36/2012-CEX.,, dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
M/s. AGNI STEELS (P) LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri S. Venkatachalam, Adv.
For the Respondent Shri L. Paneerselvan, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 22-09-2015
FINAL ORDER NOs. 41246-41247 / 2015
Learned counsel mentions that these two cases are with similar facts as that of M/s. Agni Steels (P) Ltd., which is at S.No.1 in todays cause list. Therefore, prayed that record may be called for disposal of the same. Revenue also agreed to the proposal. When the record was examined, It was found that these two cases are on similar plain like the case listed at S.No.1 in todays cause list. Accordingly, these appeals are also disposed following the same principles as in the case today at S.No.1 of todays cause list.
2. The principal issue involved in this appeal is whether appellant is eligible to the Cenvat credit on the inputs claimed to have been used in the manufacture of capital goods, construction of the plant as well as installation of machinery etc.
3. From the time of passing adjudication order, law has undergone development on the subject. Therefore, appellant deserves an opportunity of hearing for decision on the claims in respect of the items of input appearing in the Adjudication order. If there are some other items also, which were claimed by the appellant subject to use in manufacture of capital goods or claimed as Cenvat credit that deserves hearing afresh following the ratio laid down in the following cases:-
(i) Commissioner of CentraL Excise, Jaipur Vs Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.).
(ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore Vs ICL Sugars Ltd. reported in 2011 (271) E.L.T.360 (Kar.).
(iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs India Cements Ltd. reported in 2014 (305) E.L.T.558 (Mad.).
(iv) Mundra Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in 2015-TIOL-1288-HC-AHM-ST.
(v) Sarawati Sugar Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported in 2011 (270) E.L.T.465 (S.C.).
(vi) Vandana Global Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. - LB).
(vii) Jayaswal Neco Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.).
(viii) India Cements Ltd. Vs CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T. 209 (Mad.).
(ix) M/s. Empee Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli vide Final Order No.41121-40122/2015, dated 06.02.2015 in Appeal No.E/41636 & 41637/2014
4. Learned counsel submits that since the appellant is granted an opportunity to argue on the principal issue of Cenvat credit and capital goods credit, other issues involved in the Adjudication may also be kept open for decision by Adjudicating Authority while he hears the matter afresh.
5. In view of fair submission of the appellant and also development of the law, appellant is directed to make an application to the Adjudication authority within a month of receipt of this order to fix the hearing for readjudication afresh on the issues involved as emerged from the show-cause notice.
6. Appellant is entitled to a fair opportunity of hearing on all issues both on facts and law as well as the evidence. Upon hearing and framing the issues involved in the matter properly, learned Adjudicating authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order considering the decisions cited above.
7. In the result, appeal is remanded to the Adjudicating authority with the above direction.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 23-09-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 22.09.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 23.09.2015
Fair Order Typing .07.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
6 E/530,531/2012
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free