2013 (11) TMI 1106 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of the benefit of Cenvat Credit - Steel items used by supporting structures Period of Limitation Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Following Vandana Global Ltd.. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - steel items used as supporting structures are not cenvatable items - if the steel items are used for fabrication of capital goods, the same would be cenvatable - As such, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant - Part of the demand would be within limitation - Goods were used for fabrication of capital goods, appellant is directed to deposit of amount of Rs. Ten thousand as re-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat Credit, Imposition of penalty, Benefit of limitation period

The judgment addresses the denial of Cenvat Credit by the Original Adjudicating Authority concerning various items, steel items used in supporting structures, and plastic pallets, resulting in a confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,14,588 along with a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of Cenvat Credit for plastic pallets but directed a re-quantification of the demand. The appellant argued that a portion of the demand related to steel items used for fabrication of capital goods, which should be eligible for Cenvat Credit based on a previous Larger Bench decision. Additionally, the appellant contested the imposition of the demand invoking an extended period of limitation through a Show Cause Notice issued on 09.04.2010 for the period from 01.01.2009 to 30.11.2009.

The appellant's advocate contended that the steel items in question were utilized for the fabrication of capital goods, making them eligible for Cenvat Credit even under the Larger Bench decision. The advocate also challenged the order on the grounds of limitation, arguing that only a portion of the duty amount fell within the limitation period. The Tribunal considered previous decisions where the benefit of limitation was extended to similarly situated appellants due to the ambiguity in the interpretation of law before the Larger Bench's ruling. Citing a specific case, the Tribunal emphasized that when there is doubt regarding the interpretation of law and it is subsequently clarified by a Larger Bench decision, the extended period of limitation cannot be applied by the Revenue.

In light of the arguments presented, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe and report compliance. The Tribunal further ruled that the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty was waived, and its recovery stayed during the appeal process. This decision aimed to address the issues of denial of Cenvat Credit, the applicability of the limitation period, and the subsequent implications for the appellant in this particular case.