2024 (7) TMI 105 - HC - Central Excise

Case Remanded for Fresh Consideration; Tribunal Directed to Conclude by October 2024.

The Court remanded the appeal to the CESTAT for de novo consideration, setting aside the previous order and emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution. ... Input tax credit on furnance oil - to be allowed on proportionate basis or respondent-assessee should be directed to pay 8% on the total value of the exempted supply as per Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal vide its order dated 18th July 2006 has set aside the Order-In- Original (O-I-O) which had directed respondent-assessee to make payment of 8% of the sale price of the exempted final products. It is against the said Tribunal’s order, appellant-revenue is in appeal before this Court. Both the parties agree that the Tribunal, in 2006, did not have the benefit of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA-II VERSUS GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LTD. [2019 (12) TMI 430 - SUPREME COURT] and, therefore, they have no objection if the impugned order is set aside and remanded back to the Tribunal for considering the issue afresh, keeping open all the contentions of both the parties. In view thereof, the said submission is accepted by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remanding the same for denovo consideration by the Tribunal. Since the matter pertains to issues that developed almost 18 years ago, the Tribunal is requested to dispose the appeal at the earliest and preferably by 30th October 2024 after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties. Appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Whether CESTAT was justified in allowing Cenvat credit on the entire quantity of Furnace Oil.2. Whether CESTAT was correct in rejecting the Commissioner's finding on Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules.3. Whether Rules 6(1) and 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 apply to input Furnace Oil used for steam generation.4. Interpretation of the definition of 'inputs' in relation to the eligibility provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules.5. Whether penalty is warranted in a case based on interpretation differences.6. Any other substantial question of law.Analysis:1. The appeal raised questions regarding the justification of CESTAT in allowing Cenvat credit on the entire quantity of Furnace Oil used by the respondent. The issue centered around whether the credit should be allowed proportionately or whether the respondent should pay 8% on the total value of exempted supplies as per Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. The Tribunal's order, dated 18th July 2006, set aside the Order-In-Original directing the respondent to pay 8% of the sale price of exempted final products. The appellant-revenue challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Court.3. The matter was further complicated by a subsequent decision by the Apex Court in a related case, where the Court rejected the contention of full credit entitlement but remanded the matter to determine the proportion of input tax credit to be apportioned between taxable and exempted products. The respondent claimed to have already apportioned the credit based on turnover.4. The parties agreed that the Tribunal in 2006 did not have the benefit of the Apex Court's decision, and both parties consented to setting aside the impugned order and remanding it back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, allowing all contentions to be revisited.5. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal by remanding it to the Tribunal for de novo consideration, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution given the historical context of the issues involved, with a deadline set for the Tribunal to hear both parties and dispose of the matter by 30th October 2024.