2015 (12) TMI 9 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - view taken by Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that extended period of limitation is invocable appears to be erroneous. I find that the appellant have duly informed the Revenue authorities at the time of fabrication and/or taking of credit by way of letter as well as by way of Annexure to its returns and as such there is no case of suppression of facts or any contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant-assessee. In this view of the matter, the extended period of limitation seeing not invocable. Thus, there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellant. - stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit on steel plates, foundation bolt, and other items for fabrication of storage tanks.
2. Allegations of suppression and invoking extended period of limitation.
3. Eligibility of steel plates as capital goods.
4. Applicability of CENVAT credit rules and relevant case laws.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availment of CENVAT credit on various items for fabrication of storage tanks
The appellant, a manufacturer of fertilizers and chemicals, set up a new plant for Iso Propyl Alcohol (IPA) production. They availed CENVAT credit on input items like steel plates, foundation bolt, HR steel coils, and more used in the fabrication of storage tanks. The appellant duly informed the Revenue authorities through letters and returns about the credit availed on capital goods and inputs used in the IPA plant.

Issue 2: Allegations of suppression and invoking extended period of limitation
The Revenue, after a lapse of several years, objected to the CENVAT credit availed and issued a show-cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation. The notice alleged that the appellant suppressed facts and availed inadmissible credits intentionally. However, the adjudicating authority dropped the notice, stating that the appellant had informed the Department about the credit availed, and suppression cannot be alleged.

Issue 3: Eligibility of steel plates as capital goods
The Revenue contended that steel plates and other items used in the fabrication of storage tanks are not capital goods as per CENVAT Credit Rules. They argued that once the tanks are attached to the earth, they become exempted, and credit cannot be taken on materials used in their manufacture. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the extended period of limitation is applicable based on the facts presented.

Issue 4: Applicability of CENVAT credit rules and relevant case laws
The appellant argued that they had informed the Revenue authorities about the credit availed, and there was no suppression of facts. They cited CBEC orders and case laws to support their claim of eligibility for CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods. The Tribunal found that there was no suppression of facts and allowed the stay application, setting a final hearing date.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of CENVAT credit availment, allegations of suppression, eligibility of items as capital goods, and applicability of relevant rules and case laws. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no suppression of facts and the extended period of limitation was not invocable.