M/S. Rishi Steels & Alloy P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. E/198 & 341/08
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The first appellate authority, having upheld the Order-in-Original without reasoning and without considering the appellant's pleas on limitation and on receipt of the inputs, cannot sustain its order in that form; the appellate authority is required to consider and deal with the pleas raised before it, and a decision that fails to do so is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after observing the principles of natural justice. Where the show-cause notices are issued well beyond the period of the impugned Cenvat credit availment, the plea of limitation raised by the assessee is a substantive question that the appellate authority must examine and decide on its merits rather than leave unaddressed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. RKR (248) 25 & 26/2007 dated 09.01.2008 & RKR (54) 176/07 dated 19.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad)
For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
1. M/s. Rishi Steels & Alloy P. Ltd. 2. M/s. Ramdas Ispat Metals P. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.P. Sheth, Advocate for the appellant no. 1 None for appellant no. 2 Shri V.K. Shastri, AC (AR) for the respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing : 31.03.2015 Date of decision : 31.03.2015
O R D E R No:..
These two appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is the same.
2. M/s. Ramdas Ispat Metals P. Ltd. are unrepresented, while Shri S.P. Sheth appeared on behalf of the M/s. Rishi Steels & Alloy P. Ltd.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. On perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in these cases is regarding ineligible Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on the invoice which was raised by M/s. Simandhar Steel Movers I) P. Ltd., Mulund as a registered dealer. It is the case of the department that the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant is incorrect as they have not received any material under the invoice on which credit was availed while it is the claim of the assessee that they have received the materials/input. The appellant had taken a precise point before the first appellate authority and also claimed the issue of limitation before him. In both the cases, the first appellate authority order coming to a conclusion in upholding the Order-in-Original is without any reasoning and has not considered the pleas made by the appellant before him in its correct perspective. It is to be seen that the Cenvat credit availed by both the appellant is in 2002-03 and 2003-04 while the show-cause notices were issued in these cases in January/February 2006.
5. In our considered view, the first appellate authority should have considered the plea of the limitation as well as the various arguments put forth by the appellant as regards the receipt of the material/inputs by them, I find that the issue needs reconsideration by the first appellate authority. Without making any specific opinion on the case, keeping all issues open, I set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration after following the principles of natural justice.
6. Appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court)
(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
//SR
3
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