2013 (8) TMI 845 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - Authorities denied benefit in respect of MS fabricated structure - Held that - such credit availed by the appellant was being reflected in their monthly returns as there is no allegation to the contrary. As such, where the demand for the period February 2001 to April 2001 having been raised by show cause notice dated 26/6/02 is barred by limitation - Following decision of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit for fabricated structure, Limitation period for demand, Reduction of penalty

Denial of Cenvat credit for fabricated structure:
The appellant was denied the benefit of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 21,90,302 for the MS fabricated structure used to support machinery and equipment. The lower authorities held that such items were not admissible modvetable items. The Tribunal referred to a previous case law, Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur, where a similar issue was decided against the appellant. However, it was noted that during the relevant period, there were decisions favoring the assessees, and the law was settled against them only later by the Larger Bench. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had reflected the credit availed in their monthly returns without any contrary allegation. Consequently, it was held that the demand raised for the period February 2001 to April 2001, by a show cause notice dated 26/6/02, was barred by limitation and was set aside on this ground.

Limitation period for demand:
The judgment addressed the issue of the limitation period for raising a demand. It was noted that the demand raised through a show cause notice dated 26/6/02 for the period February 2001 to April 2001 was subject to a limitation period. The Tribunal considered the fact that during the relevant period, there were decisions in favor of the assessees, and the law was settled against them only later. It was emphasized that no malafide could be attributed to the assessees in such circumstances. The Tribunal found that the demand for the specified period was time-barred due to the favorable decisions existing during that time. Therefore, the demand was set aside based on the ground of limitation.

Reduction of penalty:
Regarding the Revenue's appeal against the reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal noted that since the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, the Revenue's appeal to restore the original penalty was rejected. The Tribunal ordered accordingly, maintaining the decision to set aside the penalty reduction.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the denial of Cenvat credit for fabricated structure, the limitation period for demand, and the reduction of penalty, providing a detailed overview of the issues addressed and the Tribunal's findings on each matter.