2015 (10) TMI 1821 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - cenvat credit was denied on the articles of Iron and Steel used in the construction of Plant, which can not be treated as capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the demand on the extended period of limitation. It is seen that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. Thus, it is apparent that there was conflicting view of the various benches on the issue. In this perspective, it may be considered that there can not be any suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dropped the demand of duty for the extended period of limitation. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Denial of cenvat credit on iron and steel articles used in plant construction, invoking extended period of limitation for demand of duty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the denial of cenvat credit on iron and steel articles used in the construction of a plant by the respondent, who was engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar Molasses, Distillery, etc., classifiable under specific sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The show cause notice issued proposed to deny the cenvat credit for a specific period, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating authority along with interest and penalties on the respondent company and its director. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order citing the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Upon review, it was found that the cenvat credit denial on iron and steel articles used in plant construction was the central issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand based on the extended period of limitation. However, a conflicting view existed among different benches of the Tribunal on this matter, as highlighted in the case of Vandana Global Limited vs. CCE, Raipur. Despite the conflicting views, it was concluded that there was no suppression of facts with the intent to evade duty payment, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) rightfully dropping the demand for duty for the extended period.

3. In the final judgment, the Tribunal, presided over by Mr. P.K. Das, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The judgment emphasized that there was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, especially considering the absence of intent to evade duty payment due to conflicting views on the issue at hand. The decision was made after a thorough review of the case and relevant legal precedents, ensuring a fair and just outcome for the parties involved.