2009 (12) TMI 804 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Dispute over inclusion of tank facility charges in assessable value, denial of Cenvat credit, imposition of duty demand, time-barred show cause notice, admissibility of credit as capital goods or input, legality of tank facility charges as Cenvat credit, jurisdiction of officers, Tribunal's decisions relevance, imposition of penalty.

1. Dispute over Inclusion of Tank Facility Charges:
The case involved a dispute regarding whether tank facility charges levied by the supplier should be included in the assessable value as additional consideration. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where it was held that such charges are not includible. The department had appealed against this decision. Despite this, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to deny Cenvat credit on duty paid for tank facility charges.

2. Denial of Cenvat Credit and Duty Demand:
The appellant faced duty demands and penalties for availing Cenvat credit on tank facility charges. The department argued that these charges were akin to rental charges for costly equipment, making the credit inadmissible. However, the appellant contended that once duty is paid by the supplier, credit should be admissible, whether as capital goods or input. The Tribunal supported this argument, emphasizing that the nature of the charges does not affect credit eligibility.

3. Time-Barred Show Cause Notice and Jurisdiction Issue:
One of the show cause notices issued to the appellant was deemed time-barred. The appellant's advocate highlighted that the action against the denial of Cenvat credit should have been taken at the supplier's end, not the receiver's. The advocate cited legal advice and Tribunal decisions to support the contention that the officers lacked jurisdiction to deny credit at the receiver's end.

4. Admissibility of Credit as Capital Goods or Input:
The Tribunal clarified that the admissibility of credit on tank facility charges should not be contingent on whether the charges were collected as rent. As long as the charges formed part of the assessable value, the appellant should be eligible for Cenvat credit, either as input or capital goods credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the legality of the advice provided by the CCE supported the appellant's position on credit eligibility.

5. Tribunal's Decision and Penalty Imposition:
The Tribunal found that the department had no case either on merit or limitation issues. It noted that the issue of whether duty was payable on tank facility charges was debatable, precluding the invocation of the extended period or imposition of penalties. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeals filed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues addressed by the Tribunal, including the dispute over tank facility charges, denial of Cenvat credit, jurisdictional concerns, admissibility of credit, and penalty imposition, providing a comprehensive overview of the case's legal intricacies and outcomes.