Tribunal remands appeals for fresh decision, directs appellant to provide evidence. Commissioner to consider all evidence impartially.

The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals for a fresh decision, directing the appellant to provide documentary evidence to support their claims. The Commissioner was instructed to consider all evidence without bias from previous observations.

---

---

Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to recovery of interest for the years 2009-10 to 2010-2011, demand under Rule 3(5B) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the year 2011-12, and demand not quantified for the years 2015-16 to 2016-17 along with penalty.

Recovery of Interest (2009-2011): The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, had made provisions for obsolete inventory/stores during 2009-2011 but had not reversed the Cenvat Credit availed on such inventory/stores as required by Rule 3(5B) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the inventory provisions were made for income tax purposes only and the inventory was subsequently used in manufacturing and cleared on payment of excise duty. The Tribunal noted that unless the inputs were fully written off, Rule 3(5B) did not apply before 1.3.2011. The appellant was directed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate their claim.

Demand under Rule 3(5B) for 2011-12: For the year 2011-12, a duty liability was proposed along with interest as the appellant failed to reverse the Cenvat credit. The appellant contended that interest could not be demanded for the years 2009-2011. The Tribunal emphasized the need for documentary evidence to support the claim and remanded the matter for fresh decision after granting the appellant an opportunity to produce necessary evidence.

Demand not quantified for 2015-16 to 2016-17: Another show cause notice was issued for these years proposing duty recovery due to the appellant's failure to pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit taken on slow-moving/obsolete inventory. The appellant presented a certificate from a chartered accountant, but no other documentary evidence. The Tribunal stressed the importance of providing documentary evidence and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after granting the appellant another opportunity to submit necessary evidence.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeal) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for the appellant to provide documentary evidence to support their claims. The Commissioner was directed to consider all evidence furnished by the appellant without being influenced by previous observations.

---