2016 (12) TMI 773 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Reverses Order, Emphasizes Consistent Legal Interpretation

M/s. Ambit Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Noida Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

M/s. Ambit Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Noida Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida - TMI Issues:- Interpretation of notification No. 34/2006 and notification No. 33/2012- Applicability of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004- Debit of Central Excise duty from SFIS scrips and SHI scrips- Validity of show cause notice issued to the appellant- Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the appealAnalysis:The case involved an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/EXCUSS/OOO/APP/306/2014-15 dated 29.12.2014. The appellant, a manufacturer of electrical panels, cleared goods valued at Rs. 1,73,23,271 under the Served From India Scheme and the Status Holder Incentive Scheme. The Revenue claimed that duty was not paid on these goods and issued a show cause notice for a recovery of Rs. 10,70,578 under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the exemption in the notification required debit of Central Excise duty from the scrips and relied on previous tribunal orders. The Original Authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,94,524 and dropped a demand of Rs. 7,76,054. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, criticizing a previous tribunal order's interpretation. The appellant contended that the previous tribunal order established that debiting a scrip equates to duty payment.The Tribunal objected to the language used by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, stating that judgment on the understanding of a Member was inappropriate. The Tribunal found that the previous tribunal order's ratio was applicable in the present case and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original. The appellant was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of careful language use by the Commissioner (Appeals) when analyzing orders from higher appellate forums. The decision highlighted the significance of the previous tribunal order's interpretation in determining the appellant's liability under the notification.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the correct interpretation of the notification, the application of Cenvat Credit Rules, the necessity of debiting Central Excise duty from scrips, the validity of the show cause notice, and the appropriateness of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the relevance of previous tribunal orders in establishing legal principles and ensuring consistent application of the law in similar cases.