Tribunal must substantiate decisions with clear reasoning and cannot rely solely on prior cases without addressing specific facts and legal issues raised in the current dispute.

JUDGMENT :

AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J.

1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 35-G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, being aggrieved by the impugned Final Order No. A/50671/2019-EX(DB) dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CESTAT”), in Appeal No. E/51058/2018 (Annexure-A/4), arising out of Order-in-Original No. RPR/EXCUS/000/COM/024/2018 dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure-A/3) passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, P.O. Balco Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh-495684 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent/assessee”), holding Central Excise Registration No. AAACB1290NXM002, is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and aluminium products classifiable under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the course of its manufacturing activities, the respondent was availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent was procuring coal from South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, which coal was used as an essential input in the manufacture of aluminium. On the basis of intelligence gathered, the Department initiated proceedings against SECL alleging undervaluation of coal supplied to its customers by not including statutory levies such as royalty, stowing excise duty, clean energy cess, transit fees and other charges in the assessable value, despite such levies being statutorily payable. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to SECL, Bilaspur, demanding differential excise duty on the alleged undervaluation of coal by invoking the extended period of limitation on allegations of suppression of facts and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur, vide Order- in-Original No. COMMISSIONER/RPR/CEX/37/2014 dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure-A/7), confirmed the demand of duty on royalty, stowing excise duty and other statutory levies, along with applicable interest and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Being aggrieved, SECL preferred an appeal before CESTAT, which was disposed of vide Final Order No. A/56448-56449/2017- EX(DB) dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure-A/6). The Tribunal observed that an identical issue was pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and, therefore, disposed of the appeal granting liberty to SECL to revive the matter after the final verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pursuant thereto, SECL paid the differential excise duty under protest pertaining to royalty, stowing excise duty, clean energy cess, transit fees and other charges. After making such payment, SECL issued supplementary invoices to its customers, including the respondent-assessee, in respect of the differential duty so paid under protest on coal supplied earlier. Thereafter, the Department alleged that the respondent had availed CENVAT credit on the basis of the supplementary invoices issued by SECL for the differential excise duty paid by it. It was alleged that such availment of credit was barred under Rule 9(1) (b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as the supplementary invoices were issued on account of non-levy or short-levy of duty arising out of suppression of facts by the supplier. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 20.03.