Appeal allowed based on doctrine of merger. Impugned order disallowing cenvat credit set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the application of the doctrine of merger in the case. It held that the review of a non-existent adjudication order and the subsequent impugned order were against the doctrine of merger. Referring to precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order disallowing cenvat credit was not valid and set it aside.

---

---

Issues:
Review of adjudication order after merger with Order-in-Appeal. Doctrine of merger and its application in the present case.

Analysis:
The appeal was against a Revision order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant provided taxable services, including telephone services, and procured capital goods through Central Telecom Store Depot (CTSD) at Jaipur. The Department disputed the transfer of cenvat credit from CTSD to SSA office at Udaipur due to registration issues. Show cause proceedings were initiated, resulting in penalties confirmed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The penalties were later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, a review under Section 84 led to an order disallowing cenvat credit against the appellant.

The appellant argued that the adjudication order had merged with the Order-in-Appeal and was not in existence for review by the Department. Citing a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, the appellant contended that the impugned order was not sustainable due to the principle of doctrine of merger. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, stating that the review of a non-existent adjudication order and the subsequent impugned order were against the doctrine of merger. Referring to the judgment in Inani Carriers case, the Tribunal highlighted that the doctrine of merger applies even when challenging a part of the Order-in-Appeal.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not valid and set it aside. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, emphasizing the application of the doctrine of merger in the present case.

---