2013 (7) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit of Central Excise duty paid on MS bars, plate, beam, angles, HR coils etc - These items will not fall under the category of capital goods Held that - Credit not allowed on the abovesaid items relying upon the decision in the case of Vandana Globals Ltd 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) Decided against the Assessee. Limitation Extension of period - Appellant had filed ER-1 returns during the relevant period with the authorities Held that - Extended period cannot be invoked taking a view that the appellant has mis-declared, suppressed for availing CENVAT Credit of duty Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT Credit on certain items by adjudicating authority
- Applicability of CENVAT Credit during the relevant period
- Interpretation of judgments by the Tribunal regarding eligibility of CENVAT Credit on steel items

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding the denial of CENVAT Credit on MS bars, plate, beam, angles, HR coils, etc., categorized as non-capital goods. The appellant contended that until a specific Tribunal decision in the case of Vandana Globals Ltd in 2010, there was a genuine belief based on previous decisions that such items were eligible for credit when used structurally.

2. The appellant argued that during the period from December 2007 to September 2008, they availed CENVAT Credit in good faith based on prevailing Tribunal decisions like the one in Divi's Laboratories Ltd. Despite a subsequent adverse ruling by the Larger Bench in Vandana Globals Ltd, the appellant's reliance on earlier decisions was considered valid, and the extended period for invoking misdeclaration or suppression was not justified.

3. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the limitation period, noting that the appellant regularly filed ER-1 returns during the relevant time. While the Larger Bench's decision went against the appellant on the merits, the Tribunal acknowledged the existence of conflicting decisions on the eligibility of CENVAT Credit for steel items, supporting the appellant's position based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

4. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly concerning the limitation issue. The judgment in the case of Salasar Copper was cited as covering the issue, leading to the favorable decision for the appellant.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal in favor of the appellant.