2013 (10) TMI 994 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit inputs - Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty and Penalty under Rule 15 (2) of CC Rules r.w Section 11AC of the CE Act - The issue relates to interpretation of eligibility of cenvat credit on angles, channels, beams etc. as capital goods/inputs and the applicability of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CC Ex., Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) Held that - This Tribunal has been taking a consistent view by allowing the stay petition of the assessee where extended period of limitation is involved but directed pre-deposit wherever the demand is for normal period of limitation - the entire demand is issued involving extended period of limitation and also the applicant has already deposited an amount - pre-deposit of remaining dues waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit and penalty imposed under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit and penalty amounting to Rs.1,33,78,305/- imposed under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant had availed cenvat credit on various items used in the manufacturing process, and a show-cause notice was issued for the period from March 2007 to March 2010, which was considered an extended period of limitation. The applicant had already deposited a partial amount of Rs.28,85,952/- during the adjudication process, which was acknowledged by the adjudicating authority.

The issue before the Tribunal was the interpretation of the eligibility of cenvat credit on specific items like angles, channels, beams, etc., as either capital goods or inputs, and the applicability of a previous decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal noted that it had consistently allowed stay petitions of the assessee in cases involving an extended period of limitation, while directing pre-deposit in cases with a normal period of limitation. In this case, since the entire demand was for an extended period of limitation and the applicant had already made a deposit of Rs.28,85,952/-, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of the remaining dues and stayed the recovery during the pendency of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition, considering the circumstances of the case, where the demand was for an extended period of limitation and the applicant had already made a substantial deposit. The recovery of the remaining dues was stayed pending the appeal process, based on the consistent approach taken by the Tribunal in similar cases.