9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1215 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - -after relying upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Padmini Products vs. CCE 1989 (8) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , held that for invocation of extended period there has to be some evidence that an assessee knew that they were liable to pay duty. That mere failure to pay duty or taking license is not enough to invoke extended period - when CENVAT credit is reflected in periodical returns then extended period can not be invoked. A perusal of the records of this appeal reveals that the factual matrix is similar to the facts available before the CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Pushp Enterprises 2010 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . Accordingly, it is held that extended period is not invokable in the present appeal - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of CENVAT credit, admissibility of CENVAT credit on services, invocation of extended period. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal challenging the disallowance of CENVAT credit by the adjudicating authority, which was upheld in the original order. The appellant's representative argued that the present appeal is a continuation of a previous order and focused on the admissibility of CENVAT credit for service tax paid on Study and Designing of Storm Water drainage development. It was contended that the appellant believed in good faith that the CENVAT credit was admissible, as evidenced by the inclusion of these credits in the Central Excise returns periodically filed with the department. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument. The Revenue's representative, on the other hand, emphasized the appellant's responsibility under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules to ascertain the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the services availed. The Revenue strongly defended the invocation of the extended period due to the appellant's failure to meet this responsibility, as noted in the first appellate authority's decision. Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the main issue raised was whether there was any suppression of facts with the intention to evade duty or claim incorrect credit, which would warrant the application of the extended period. The appellant argued that there was no such suppression or intention, citing a relevant case law to support their position. The case law highlighted the criteria for invoking the extended period and emphasized the need for evidence that the assessee knew they were liable to pay duty. The judgment referenced case laws from CESTAT Delhi and the Apex Court, particularly the decision in the case of Padmini Products vs. CCE, to establish that the mere failure to pay duty or obtain a license is not sufficient to invoke the extended period. It was noted that when CENVAT credit is disclosed in periodical returns, as in this case, the extended period cannot be invoked. Drawing parallels with a similar factual scenario in a previous case, the judgment concluded that the extended period was not applicable in the present appeal. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed based on the issue of time-bar. In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant by allowing the appeal and highlighted the importance of evidence and compliance with legal provisions regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit and the invocation of the extended period.
|
