2013 (10) TMI 1088 - AT - Central Excise

Interpretation of eligibility of CENVAT Credit CENVAT Credit on MS Angles, MS Channels & Joists, HR Plates, HR Coils etc. during the period from May, 2005 to June, 2009 - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Following Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCEX, Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - This Tribunal has been taking a consistent view by allowing stay petition of the assessee where extended period of limitation is involved but directed predeposit, wherever demand is for normal period of limitation - the Applicant are directed to make amount as pre-deposit upon such submission the balance dues would stand waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Partial Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit and penalty under Section 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Availing CENVAT Credit on Various Inputs:
The case involved a dispute regarding the availing of CENVAT Credit on MS Angles, MS Channels & Joists, HR Plates, HR Coils, etc., during the period from May 2005 to June 2009. The key contention was the admissibility of the CENVAT Credit on these inputs/capital goods used in the manufacture of structurals. The Applicant, through their consultant, acknowledged the dispute and expressed willingness to deposit the CENVAT Credit amount for the normal period of limitation, which was determined to be Rs. 1.73 lakh. The Revenue did not contest this amount, indicating agreement on the sum for the normal period.

2. Interpretation of Eligibility of CENVAT Credit:
The central issue in the case revolved around the interpretation of the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on the mentioned inputs as capital goods/inputs. The Tribunal referred to a significant decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCEX, Raipur, reported in 2010(253) ELT 440(Tri.LB). The Tribunal noted its consistent approach of allowing stay petitions of the assessee in cases involving the extended period of limitation but requiring pre-deposit when the demand pertains to the normal period of limitation. In line with this precedent, the Applicant was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1.73 lakh within six weeks from the date of the order. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date, with the balance dues adjudged to be waived upon the deposit. The recovery of the balance amount was stayed during the pendency of the Appeal, effectively disposing of the Stay Petition under the stated terms.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the dispute over CENVAT Credit availed on specific inputs, emphasizing the need for pre-deposit in cases involving the normal period of limitation. The decision was guided by the interpretation of the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on the inputs in question, referencing a key precedent to establish a consistent approach in such matters.