M/S.Neelachal Ispat Nigam LTD. vs. Commissioner,GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the adjudication order was appealable. It observed that all grounds raised by the petitioner, including those concerning the scope of the SCN and the impact of the amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, could be effectively urged before the statutory appellate tribunal. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at that stage. The Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the adjudication order, provided it was filed not later than 9th January 2023, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The delay would be explained by the pendency of the writ petition. The interim order passed by the High Court on 3rd April 2019 would continue until the Tribunal passed an order on the interim relief application. The petitioner was also advised to request the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the appeal. No specific finding was made on the merits of the petitioner's grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd., challenged a show cause notice (SCN) dated 25th/26th February 2010 and an adjudication order dated 27th April 2018, both issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Commissionerate. The SCN and adjudication order related to alleged wrongful availment of credit. The petitioner argued that the adjudication order went beyond the scope of the SCN and was based on audit objections not included in the original notice. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that an amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, by Section 73 of the Finance Act 2010, rendered the jurisdictional fact of wrongful credit availment moot, as the credit had been reversed and interest paid. The High Court had previously granted interim protection against coercive action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner, in passing the adjudication order dated 27th April 2018, travelled beyond the scope of the original show cause notice dated 25th/26th February 2010, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 by Section 73 of the Finance Act 2010 rendered the jurisdictional fact regarding wrongful availment of credit by the petitioner non-existent, given that the credit was reversed and interest paid, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was based on audit objections that were not part of the original SCN, thus exceeding its scope. They also contended that the amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 by Section 73 of the Finance Act 2010 nullified the basis of the demand, as the credit had been reversed and interest paid. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the revenue or the department.