NET METALLICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (CEA, for short), is preferred against the order of the CESTAT dtd. 14/7/2023.

(2.) The appellant is a partnership concern represented by Sri Jugal Kishore Mahanta. The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh and the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of this appeal are that during its usual course of business, the appellant/assessee filed Central Excise returns before the appropriate authority and claimed refund of duty paid in terms of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dtd. 25/4/2007, paid through PLA Account, after availing CENVAT Credit, to which the appellant (also referred to as the assessee) was entitled. The respondent No. 3, however issued a demand-cum- show cause notice dtd. 30/7/2013, with allegations that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit of CENVAT duty including Education cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Cess to the tune of Rs.35,34,992.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Two Only) during the period from July, 2012 to May, 2013, in contravention to the provisions of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and therefore, the said amount of CENVAT Credit procured by the appellant is to be disallowed. The appellant was directed to submit reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and to appear before the respondent No. 3 for personal hearing, failing which, the respondent No. 3 would decide the case on basis of available records. The appellant submitted a detailed reply, justifying his stance, relating to the demand-cum-show cause notice dtd. 30/7/2013 and inter alia, submitted that Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, is specific and unequivocal to the effect that an invoice issued by a manufacturer is sufficient to claim CENVAT Credit. The appellant made a prayer before the respondent No. 3 to drop the proceedings, sought to be initiated against him. The appellant also appeared before the respondent No. 3 on the date fixed for personal hearing.