2014 (11) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of ineligible cenvat credit - whether extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case - Held that - returns were filed promptly. In the returns it is clearly mentioned that they availed credit under the aforesaid rules. The audit party accepted the same. It is only in the second audit that they noticed the mistake and initiated proceedings. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts none of the other conditions prescribed in the Proviso exists in this case to extend the period of limitation of 5 years. - Extended period is not applicable in the present proceedings - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether extended period is invokable in the present facts and circumstances.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against a specific order, questioning the invokability of the extended period in the given circumstances. The appellant did not contest the issue on merits but focused on the applicability of the extended period. During the hearing, the appellant cited various case laws to support their argument that the extended period should not be invoked. On the other hand, the Revenue representative relied on different case laws to argue in favor of invoking the extended period.

The Tribunal carefully examined the case records and the arguments presented by both sides. The main issue to be decided was whether the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act applied to the case. It was noted that the appellant's unit had been audited by audit parties, and the credit taken was reflected in the returns filed with the department. The Tribunal referred to a specific case law involving Garrison Polysacks Pvt. Limited, where it was held that the extended period could not be invoked under similar circumstances.

In the detailed analysis of the case law, it was highlighted that the appellant had promptly filed returns, clearly mentioning the credit availed, which was accepted by the audit party. It was only during a subsequent audit that a mistake was noticed, leading to proceedings being initiated. The Tribunal emphasized that none of the conditions for extending the limitation period existed in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following the precedent set by previous judgments.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced another case involving Rajasthan State Warehousing Corp., where it was held that if the demand for the extended period is not invocable, no demand for interest or penalty can be sustained. In the present case, the Tribunal applied the legal principles established in previous judgments, concluding that the appellant should not be held liable for duty as they had voluntarily paid it and reversed the credit upon being informed.

Based on the findings and the application of relevant case laws, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, providing consequential relief as necessary. The judgment was pronounced on a specific date, finalizing the decision in favor of the appellant.