M/S. Sharda Foregoing & Stamping (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 July 2015

CitationExcise Appeal No. 1289 of 2006-Ex (SM)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the adjudicating authority has not examined the documents on which the assessee relies to claim Cenvat credit, and the demand has been confirmed without considering that defence, the appropriate course is to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify those documents, determine the credit to which the assessee is entitled, and quantify the residual demand, rather than deciding the credit claim on the merits at the appellate stage.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIExcise Appeal No. 1289 of 2006-Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 36/Commr/GZB/2005 dated 30/12/2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Sharda Foregoing & Stamping (P) Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Ghaziabad

Appearance:

Shri S S Dabas, Advocate for the Appellants

Ms. Ranjana Jha, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 1.07.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ 52084 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed against the appellant without considering their defense that they are entitled to take cenvat credit on inputs during the impugned period.

2. Heard the parties and perused the order.

3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is a clear finding by the adjudicating authority that appellant has not produced the documents on the strength of which they want to avail Cenvat Credit. In these circumstances, matter needs examination at the end of adjudicating authority. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for verification of documents on the strength of which the appellant wants to avail Cenvat Credit and thereafter pass the order after considering the documents produced by the appellant how much credit is entitled to and how much demand remains against the appellant to be confirmed.

4. Considering the fact that matter has come second time before this Tribunal, the adjudicating authority shall fix the date of hearing immediately after receiving the order of this Tribunal and thereafter decide the issue within 30 days thereof.

5. In these terms, appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

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