Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1084 - AT - Central ExciseInvokation of extended period of limitation - Cenvat credit - duty paid on various iron and steel items which has been used as structurals - Held that - identical issues stand decided by the Tribunal in number of decisions and it stand held that inasmuch as law was declared subsequently, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant for the purpose of alleging suppression and for invoking the longer period of limitation. As the entire demand is barred by limitation, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
Issues:
1. Barred demand by limitation for denial of Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used as structurals. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, addressed the issue of a demand raised for the period February 2007 to December 2007. The demand was based on the denial of Cenvat credit on duty paid for various iron and steel items alleged to have been used as structurals, making the credit unavailable as per the law established in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been previously decided, holding that since the law was declared subsequently, no malafide intent could be attributed to the appellant for alleging suppression and invoking a longer period of limitation. Reference was made to several decisions by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, including Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I, Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, and others, to support this stance. The Tribunal found that since the entire demand was barred by limitation, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the timeline of legal precedents and the absence of malafide intent in cases involving the limitation period for demands related to Cenvat credit on specific items like iron and steel used as structurals.
|