2013 (1) TMI 76 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit wrongly availed - whether the damaged parts were put into use or not - assessee contested against invoking extended period of limitation - Held that - A final claim bill which clearly shows that the appellant informed the Insurance Company that they had availed the cenvat credit on the parts and while settling the claim, the insurance company has specifically disallowed the amount of Rs. 4,00,206/-, treating it as available as cenvat credit. The fact that appellants made claim before the insurance company that they have availed the cenvat credit and they are eligible for the same would show that they apparently entertained belief that they are eligible for the credit in respect of damaged parts. Appellant having not suppressed any fact even before a private party like insurance company it has to be held that appellant had entertained bonafide belief regarding availability of cenvat credit and therefore, extended period is not invokable - in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Availment of cenvat credit for damaged parts in manufacturing process.
2. Lack of evidence regarding the timing of damage to the parts.
3. Requirement of proof for damaged parts being put into use.
4. Claim of limitation for the case.
5. Bonafide belief regarding availability of cenvat credit.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the appellant's availment of cenvat credit for damaged parts in the manufacturing process. The Revenue contended that the credit was wrongly availed as the damaged parts were not used in manufacturing. The proceedings resulted in the confirmation of demand for wrongly availed cenvat credit, interest, and penalty equal to the demanded amount.

2. During the hearing, it was noted that neither party had concrete evidence to establish when the parts became damaged - whether during transportation, assembly, or manufacturing. The appellant's advocate argued that the parts were damaged while being put to use, shifting the burden to the Revenue to prove the timing of damage before demanding cenvat credit.

3. The core issue emerged as determining whether the damaged parts were indeed put into use, as required by the Central Excise Rules for credit availment. Both sides lacked evidence to support their claims. The appellant asserted that the parts were damaged during installation within the factory, but failed to provide substantial proof. The Department also did not gather evidence, merely insisting that the appellant needed to prove their case.

4. Apart from the substantive issue, the appellant raised a claim of limitation, emphasizing that the credit was taken in January 2006, while the show cause notice was issued in July 2008. The appellant's counsel argued that the extended period should not apply as there was no suppression of facts, citing the appellant's disclosure to the Insurance Company regarding the cenvat credit on damaged parts.

5. The judgment ultimately favored the appellant on the ground of limitation, thereby setting aside the impugned order entirely. The presiding judge refrained from delving into the merits of the case due to the lack of evidence from either side. It was noted that the appellant's bonafide belief in the availability of cenvat credit, as evidenced by their disclosure to the Insurance Company, precluded the invocation of the extended period by the Department.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the critical aspects and arguments presented in the legal judgment, addressing each issue comprehensively while preserving the essence of the original text.

← Previous Next →