2013 (11) TMI 1081 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility for Cenvat credit Extended Period of Limitation - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Following Vandana Global Ltd. Versus CCE 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - CENVAT credit is admissible in case of materials similar to the ones used by the appellants for supporting structures/fabrication of machinery within the factories here extended period could not have been invoked - The appellants have made out a prima facie case on limitation - an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as pre-deposit payable by the appellant, which is applicable to the normal period of limitation is deposited, would be sufficient for the purpose of pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for CENVAT credit on specific items
2. Invocation of extended period for confirming demand
3. Imposition of penalties on the appellant and others

Issue 1: Eligibility for CENVAT credit on specific items
The central issue in this case revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit on various items such as aluminium sheets/wires/coils, welding electrodes, copper bars/rods, MS rods/sheets/bars/channels/flats/joists, etc. The appellant had argued that they were entitled to the credit based on decisions supporting similar cases in the past. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's bona fide belief, considering the precedents set by the Tribunal in favor of similar appellants in other instances. This belief was raised before the original adjudicating authority as well. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellant had made out a prima facie case on limitation due to their genuine belief supported by past decisions. As a result, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a specified timeframe to fulfill the pre-deposit requirement, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit and stay against the recovery of the remaining dues for all appellants.

Issue 2: Invocation of extended period for confirming demand
The second issue pertained to the invocation of the extended period to confirm the demand of CENVAT credit exceeding Rs.1.85 crores. The appellant argued against the use of the extended period, citing decisions supporting their eligibility for the credit based on the materials used for supporting structures and machinery fabrication within their factories. On the contrary, the learned Additional Commissioner highlighted that the mere filing of returns and audit visits did not preclude the invocation of the extended period. After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant's genuine belief, supported by past Tribunal decisions, warranted a prima facie case on limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal directed a specific pre-deposit amount to be made by the appellant to proceed with the case, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit and stay against the recovery of the remaining dues.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalties on the appellant and others
Apart from the eligibility for CENVAT credit and the invocation of the extended period, penalties were imposed on the appellant-company and two other parties who were also part of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the issues related to CENVAT credit and the invocation of the extended period. The penalties seemed to be a consequential aspect of the overall case, with the Tribunal's ruling on the pre-deposit and stay against recovery addressing the financial obligations of the appellant and the other parties involved in the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings regarding the eligibility for CENVAT credit, the invocation of the extended period, and the imposition of penalties on the appellant and other parties involved in the appeal.