9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1247 - AT - Central ExciseAdmissibility of CENVAT credit - Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that - It is observed from the case laws relied upon by the appellant that the issue of admissibility of CENVAT credit on the impugned items was disputable. Which was settled by CESTAT Larger Bench in the case of M/s Vandana Global Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)). When the issue is disputable, and divergent views were expressed by the Courts then it cannot be said that appellant had any intention to evade any duty or deliberately took wrong CENVAT credit. Under the present facts and circumstances extended period of demand cannot be made applicable. The period of dispute is from October 2007 to February 2009, whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 22.06.2010, which is clearly beyond the normal period of one year under Rule - 14 of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellant is allowed only on limitation in raising demand without expressing any views on the merits of admissibility of CENVAT credit - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Admissibility of CENVAT credit on MS angles, Bars, Plates, Channels falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Applicability of extended period for demand. Analysis: 1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit: The appellant filed an appeal regarding the denial of CENVAT credit on items like MS angles, Bars, Plates, Channels falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant argued that the issue of admissibility of credit on these items was disputable, as different views were presented before being settled by the CESTAT Larger Bench in the case of M/s Vandana Global Ltd. The appellant contended that due to the disputable nature of the issue and the existence of divergent views by the Courts, there was no intention to evade duty or wrongfully avail CENVAT credit. The Tribunal observed that the issue was indeed disputable, and since divergent views existed, it could not be concluded that the appellant deliberately took wrong CENVAT credit. 2. Applicability of Extended Period: The Revenue argued that the wrong availment of CENVAT credit was detected during an audit, justifying the applicability of the extended period for demand. However, the Tribunal considered the timeline of events. The period of dispute was from October 2007 to February 2009, while the Show Cause Notice was issued on 22.06.2010, which exceeded the normal period of one year under Rule - 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the extended period of demand could not be applied in this case. 3. Judgment: After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant solely on the basis of limitation in raising the demand. The Tribunal did not express any views on the merits of the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the disputed items. This decision indicates that while the admissibility of CENVAT credit was disputable, the extended period for demand was not applicable in this scenario, leading to the allowance of the appeal based on the limitation issue.
|
