2013 (10) TMI 995 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit Waiver of Pre-deposit - The issue relates to interpretation of eligibility of cenvat credit on angles, channels, beams etc. as capital goods/inputs Held that - Following vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - the Tribunal has been taking a consistant 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 applicants are able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of duty and penalty, pre-deposit of all dues waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit 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:

1. Interpretation of eligibility of cenvat credit on various items: The applicant availed Cenvat credit on items like M.S. Angles, Channels, Plates, M.S. Rounds/Rods, Chequered coil used in manufacturing storage tanks, accessories, machineries, and structures. The contention was that the show-cause notice issued for an amount of approximately Rs.1.55 Crores involved a period from April 2006 to August 2010. However, in the annexure to the notice, for the period April 2009 to August 2010, it was shown as nil, leading to the argument that the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal noted the consistent view taken in similar cases, allowing stay petitions where an extended period of limitation is involved but directing pre-deposit for demands within the normal limitation period. Referring to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Bandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Raipur, the Tribunal found that the issue involved the interpretation of eligibility of cenvat credit on angles, channels, beams, etc., as capital goods/inputs. Considering this, the Tribunal granted total waiver of duty and penalty, waiving the pre-deposit and staying the recovery during the appeal's pendency.

2. Applicability of Tribunal's decisions: The ld. Consultant for the applicant argued based on the Tribunal's consistent approach in similar cases involving extended periods of limitation. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and referred to its previous decisions where stay petitions were allowed under such circumstances. The Tribunal specifically mentioned the Bandana Global Ltd. case, emphasizing the relevance of the interpretation of eligibility for cenvat credit on specific items as capital goods/inputs. By aligning with its past decisions, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of all dues adjudged during the appeal process.

3. Barred by limitation: The ld. A.R. for the Department accepted that the demand was indeed barred by limitation. This concession by the Department further supported the applicant's argument regarding the time-barred nature of the demand. The Tribunal considered this aspect in its decision to grant the waiver of pre-deposit and stay the recovery of the dues during the appeal. The acknowledgment of the limitation issue by the Department played a crucial role in the Tribunal's final decision in favor of the applicant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case revolved around the interpretation of eligibility for cenvat credit on specific items, the consistent approach taken in similar cases, and the acknowledgment of the limitation issue by the Department. The Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of dues during the appeal process, aligning with its past decisions and considering the arguments presented by both parties.