9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1553 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - M.S. angle, M.S. Channel, M.S. Rods and Mill plate - denial on the ground that the same have been used as supporting structure - Time limitation - Held that - the demand in the present case is hopelessly barred by limitation having been issued beyond the normal period of limitation as provided under Section 11A. The Tribunal in a number of cases involving identical issue has held that longer period of limitation is not available when during the relevant period, there are divergent views of the higher Courts - reliance placed in the case of C.C.E., Raipur vs. Raja Ram Maize Products 2010 (7) TMI 339 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where on similar issue demand was not sustainable on the issue of period of limitation. Demand raised beyond the normal period of limitation - the same is barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Availment of cenvat credit on iron and steel items 2. Denial of cenvat credit by adjudicating authority 3. Barred by limitation under Section 11A 4. Precedents regarding divergent views of higher Courts on cenvat credit Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant availed cenvat credit on various iron and steel items like M.S. angle, M.S. Channel, M.S. Rods, and Mill plate during a specific period. Issue 2: The show cause notice proposed denial of cenvat credit by asserting that the items were used as supporting structural, making the credit ineligible. The adjudicating authority upheld this denial based on a Tribunal decision and imposed a penalty on the appellant. Issue 3: The Tribunal, without delving into the case's merits, found the demand to be time-barred under Section 11A. It noted that during the relevant period, there was a decision favoring the assessee regarding the entitlement to cenvat credit on iron and steel items. Subsequently, the law was altered post the Tribunal's decision in another case. Issue 4: The Tribunal referred to several cases with similar issues where it was held that a longer period of limitation is not applicable when there are conflicting views from higher Courts during the relevant period. Citing precedents like C.C.E. Raipur vs. M/s Baldev Alloys (P) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the demand in this case, being beyond the normal limitation period, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with relief to the appellant.
|
