2015 (5) TMI 1102 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - service tax paid on different category of insurance policies - Held that - the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs CCE Jaipur 2014 (7) TMI 485 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has allowed the cenvat credit of service tax paid on burglary insurance, Fire insurance, transit insurance for inward transportation of raw material and outward transportation of finished goods, holding that the services are confirming to definition of input service contained in Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004. Extended period of limitation - Held that - the Department had not specifically proved the fact with tangible evidence that the appellant had suppressed the fact of taking irregular credit. Thus, issuance of show cause notice on 09.04.2013, which is almost after four and a half years from the date of visit of the audit officers, in my considered opinion, is barred by limitation of time. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for insurance policies; Bar on recovery proceedings due to limitation period.

Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on insurance policies
The appellant contended that the insurance coverage for imported inputs and transit insurance for finished goods should be considered as input services for availing Cenvat credit. They argued that the insurance premiums were related to their business activities and relied on precedents like Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs CCE Jaipur to support their claim. The Tribunal noted that previous judgments had allowed Cenvat credit on similar services, holding that they fell within the definition of input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the Cenvat benefit could not be denied.

Issue 2: Bar on recovery proceedings due to limitation period
Regarding the limitation period for recovery proceedings, the appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued beyond the normal period was time-barred as they had not engaged in fraudulent activities to evade duty payment. They cited cases like CCE Noida vs Accurate Chemical Industries to support their contention. The Revenue, however, invoked the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and relied on judgments like CCE Vishakhapatnam vs Mehta & Co. to justify the issuance of the SCN. The Tribunal observed that the Department failed to provide concrete evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the SCN issued after four and a half years from the audit visit was indeed barred by limitation. Citing the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Triveni Engineering & Industries, the Tribunal emphasized the need for positive acts to establish suppression of facts. The Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on previous cases where deliberate suppression was proven, stating that such circumstances were absent in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, allowing Cenvat credit on insurance policies and barring the recovery proceedings due to the limitation period, based on the lack of evidence of willful suppression of facts by the appellant.