2014 (11) TMI 1025 - AT - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - Demand stands confirmed against the appellant on the ground that various iron and steel items have been used as structurals, in which case cenvat credit would not be available to them - Held that - The demand stands raised for the period July 2007 to June 2009 vide Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2012. Tribunal in the following cases has held that longer period of limitation cannot be applied , in such cases inasmuch as the issue was decided in favour of the assessee, prior to declaration of law by the larger bench. Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I 2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh 2002 (11) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Thus we hold the demand in the present case also to be time barred and set aside the impugned order on this limited issue, without going into the merits of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Limitation period for demand of cenvat credit on iron and steel items used as structurals.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, dealt with the issue of the limitation period for demanding cenvat credit on iron and steel items used as structurals. The appellant argued that most items were used for fabrication of capital goods, thus cenvat credit should not be denied. However, the demand was raised for the period July 2007 to June 2009, citing the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. The Tribunal referred to various precedents, including Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I, Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, and others, to establish that a longer limitation period cannot be applied when the issue was decided in favor of the assessee before the declaration of law by the larger bench.

The Tribunal, following the above decisions, held that the demand in the present case was time-barred and set aside the impugned order solely on this limited issue without delving into the merits of the case. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly. This judgment highlights the importance of the limitation period in tax matters and the significance of prior decisions in determining the applicability of such periods, ensuring fairness and consistency in tax assessments.