Remission claim and CENVAT credit reversal must be considered before rejecting relief; matter remanded for fresh decision.

Rejection of a remission-related application was found unsustainable where the record showed reversal of CENVAT credit and prior intimation to the department, and that material was not disputed in response. The authority had proceeded on the premise that the reversal was not specifically placed before it, even though it was relevant to the remission claim and already available on the writ record. The matter required fresh consideration of the reversal material, verification of the original records, and an opportunity of hearing before any decision could stand. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's remission-related application was sustainable when the record showed reversal of CENVAT credit and the authority had not considered that material.

Analysis: The disputed factual premise before the authority was the alleged non-disclosure of reversal of CENVAT credit in relation to the destroyed work-in-progress goods. The writ record showed that the petitioner had reversed the credit and had informed the department by letter, and these assertions were not disputed in the response. The rejection order proceeded on the basis that the reversal had not been specifically placed before the authority, although the material was already available and the fact of reversal was relevant to the remission claim. In these circumstances, the rejection could not stand without a fresh consideration of the reversal material and an opportunity to verify the original records.

Conclusion: The rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after considering the reversal of CENVAT credit and after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

---