2016 (2) TMI 764 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit with regard to the disputed goods - Held that - In the case of Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (5) TMI 241 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) this Tribunal has held that steel items used for fabrication of gantry rails on which EOT Crain runs would be eligible for cenvat credit as input. In view of the decision in favour of eligibility of cenvat credit on the disputed goods there is possibility on the part of the appellant to entertain the bonafide belief that credit is eligible to the appellant. Therefore issuance of show cause notice in this case should be confined to a period of one year from the date of taking of such credit. Since in this case the show cause notice has been issued beyond the period of one year it is of the view that the same is barred by limitation of time. There is no specific allegation levelled against the appellant concerning fraud collusion suppression etc. with intent to evade payment of duty it is of the considered opinion that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for denial of cenvat benefit to the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Denial of cenvat credit for disputed goods, eligibility of disputed goods as inputs or capital goods, invocation of extended period of limitation for show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Tower material, availed cenvat credit for duty paid M.S. Angles, Channels, Flats, Rods, etc. used for erection/installation of supporting structures and shed extension. The Central Excise Department denied the credit, stating the goods did not qualify as inputs or capital goods.

2. Eligibility of Disputed Goods: The appellant argued that the disputed goods were used to bear the load of overhead cranes within the factory, making them eligible as inputs for cenvat credit. Citing the Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. case, the appellant contended that the goods qualified as inputs. Additionally, the appellant claimed the show cause notice issued for disallowing the credit was time-barred, relying on legal precedents to support the limitation argument.

3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: The respondent argued that the nature of use of disputed goods did not classify them as inputs or capital goods for cenvat credit. The respondent justified invoking the extended period of limitation due to irregular credit detection by the Audit Wing.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal noted conflicting decisions on cenvat credit eligibility for similar cases. Referring to the Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating the disputed goods were eligible for cenvat credit as inputs. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice, issued beyond one year from credit taking, was time-barred, citing the N.R. Agarwal Industries case. As no allegations of fraud or intent to evade duty were made against the appellant, the extended limitation period was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the limitation ground without delving into the case's merits.