2004 (10) TMI 511 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of credit based on a letter from the appellants.
2. Time-barred demand for duty.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods.
4. Reversal of Modvat credit by the appellants.
5. Commissioner's findings and conclusions.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of credit based on a letter from the appellants:
The appellant submitted that the credit disallowance was due to a letter dated 25th February, 2002, where they sought confirmation from the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding withdrawing the credit. However, as the confirmation was not received, they did not reverse the credit. The appellant argued that the deposit made cannot be considered a duty payment. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that if the amounts were deposited during an investigation and found admissible, the benefit should be extended to them.

2. Time-barred demand for duty:
The demand for duty was raised on 26-9-2002 for the period from 1-5-2000 to 30-4-2001. The appellant argued that since the demand was issued beyond one year, it was time-barred. The Commissioner also confirmed this in the impugned order, stating that the show-cause notice was issued after the normal time limit, making the demand not sustainable due to the limitation of the time bar.

3. Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods:
The Commissioner acknowledged that the appellants were entitled to Cenvat credit on capital goods, as observed in the order. The Commissioner recognized that the input materials were utilized in the manufacture and construction of eligible capital goods. The denial of credit amounting to Rs. 95,554 was based on the appellant's alleged voluntary reversal of credit, which the appellant disputed, stating that no communication was received from the Superintendent regarding the reversal.

4. Reversal of Modvat credit by the appellants:
The Commissioner's finding that the Modvat credit was voluntarily reversed by the appellants was contested by the appellant, highlighting the lack of communication from the Superintendent regarding the reversal. The appellant argued that a time-barred demand for duty cannot be confirmed, and the denial of Cenvat credit on this basis was unjustified.

5. Commissioner's findings and conclusions:
The Commissioner concluded that the demand raised by the show-cause notice was time-barred and not sustainable due to the limitation of the time bar. Additionally, the Commissioner affirmed that the appellants were eligible for Cenvat credit on capital goods, emphasizing that the Modvat credit availed by the appellants was in compliance with the rules and the law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by the appellant, the Commissioner's findings, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata in favor of the appellants.