2014 (1) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit Credit availed on MS angles, Beams, Plates Sheets Utilized for the purpose of fabrication of structures for support of capital goods Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The items are used for manufacturing supporting structures Following Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raichur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - the appellant is not eligible for the credit - the appellant directed to deposited the amount attributable to normal period of limitation which is worked out as ₹ 39,12,002 to be submitted as pre-deposit Upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on certain items availed by the appellant.
2. Imposition of penalty and interest on wrongly availed CENVAT credit.
3. Validity of demand for CENVAT credit beyond the normal period of limitation.
4. CENVAT credit availed on invoices not in the name of the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The Appellant availed CENVAT credit on various items for fabrication of structures for support of capital goods and parts. The proceedings were initiated to recover the CENVAT credit availed during a specific period. The impugned order demanded the recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit, along with the imposition of penalty and interest.

2. The learned Commissioner held that the items in question were used for manufacturing supporting structures and, citing a previous decision, concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the credit. Additionally, it was noted that credit had been taken based on invoices not in the appellant's name, raising further concerns.

3. The appellant argued that a significant portion of the demand was beyond the normal period of limitation. The counsel contended that conflicting decisions existed before a specific case law was established, making the demand for CENVAT credit for an extended period unsustainable. The Respondent, however, supported the demand based on the retrospective effect of a legislative amendment and the non-compliance with invoice requirements.

4. Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding invoices not in their name and the sustainability of the demand for an extended period. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe, after which the predeposit requirement for the remaining dues was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted during the appeal's pendency.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision in each aspect of the case.