Tribunal remands case due to procedural errors, emphasizing natural justice and scope of notice. Credit reversal issue pending.

The Tribunal set aside the order-in-original and remanded the case for de-novo adjudication, finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the show cause notice and violated principles of natural justice by relying on undisclosed verification reports. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the credit reversal issue but remanded it for further consideration. The extended period of limitation issue was also remanded for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to review all procedural and substantive aspects.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice.
2. Whether credit is required to be reversed under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation invoked is correct.

Summary:

Issue 1: Scope of Show Cause Notice
The appellant contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. The show cause notice primarily questioned the reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for clearances made under Notification No. 214/86-CE and Notification No. 22/2003-CE. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand based on verification reports, which were not provided to the appellant, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the order-in-original indeed traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and set aside the order for de-novo adjudication.

Issue 2: Reversal of Credit
The appellant argued that the reversal of credit under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not required for clearances made under Notification No. 214/86-CE and Notification No. 22/2003-CE. The learned Commissioner had initially held that no reversal was required for goods cleared to 100% EOUs and domestic manufacturers where the principal manufacturer discharged the duty. However, the demand of Rs. 84,20,615/- was confirmed for clearances made to M/s. Metal and Steel Factory, Ishapore, availing exemption under Notification No. 62/1995-CE. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits but remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication.

Issue 3: Extended Period of Limitation
The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation was incorrectly invoked as they had always complied with the procedures under Notification No. 214/86-CE. The show cause notice alleged deliberate suppression of facts to evade payment. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the final order but remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication, implying that all procedural and substantive aspects would be reconsidered.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order-in-original and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de-novo adjudication, emphasizing that the principles of natural justice were violated as the order-in-original traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and relied on undisclosed verification reports.

---