Fraudulent Cenvat Credit and Extended Limitation upheld as de novo demand, interest and penalty were restored.

CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not set aside the de novo adjudication order on an incomplete appreciation of evidence or without independent reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority had complied with the remand directions, examined the material in detail, and that the allegations involved fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit on fictitious documents. It further accepted that extended limitation and penalty consequences followed from the alleged fraud, and treated statements recorded before customs officers as material evidence. The order setting aside the adjudication was therefore reversed, and the de novo demand, interest and penalty were restored in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the de novo adjudication order confirming irregular Cenvat credit, interest and equal penalty, and whether the original adjudication order was liable to be restored.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the case involved alleged fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit on fictitious documents and that the original adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, had complied with the earlier remand directions and examined the material in detail. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have interfered without adequate independent reasoning and to have rested on an incomplete appreciation of the evidence. The Tribunal accepted the Department's challenge, held that the findings used to set aside the adjudication order could not sustain, and also accepted that the extended limitation and penalty consequences followed from the alleged fraud. Statements recorded before customs officers were treated as material evidence for the purposes of the dispute.

Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the de novo Order-in-Original confirming demand, interest and penalty was restored. The appeal was allowed in favour of the Revenue.

---