2018 (5) TMI 2015 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of CENVAT Credit - time limitation - whether the demand for recovery of CENVAT availed on inadmissible input service, is barred by limitation or otherwise? - allegation also that details of the input service in their monthly returns not disclosed - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation. HELD THAT - This Tribunal in similar circumstances, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-I VERSUS PUSHP ENTERPRISES 2010 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has held that Just because the respondent had taken Cenvat credit in respect of certain input services, which according to the Department was not admissible to them, it cannot be concluded that the credit had been taken knowing very well that the same was not admissible unless there is some evidence in this regard. Thus, the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on various input services on the bonafide belief that the same are admissible to them under the definition of inputs services contained in Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and declared the quantum of Cenvat Credit in the ER-I Returns. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged irregular availment of Service Tax Credit on GTA.
2. Confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty by Adjudicating Authority.
3. Upholding of Adjudication Order by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Applicability of extended period of limitation for recovery of CENVAT availed on inadmissible input service.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various foam products, faced a Show Cause Cum Demand Notice for alleged irregular availment of Service Tax Credit on GTA. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of &8377; 61,230 along with interest and imposed a penalty under relevant rules.

2. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. The consultant for the appellant argued that the CENVAT Credit was taken based on bonafide belief and timely submission of relevant documents, emphasizing that the demand was a subsequent one and hence, the extended period of limitation should not apply.

3. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Lower Authorities, contending that the appellant's non-disclosure of input service details in monthly returns amounted to suppression of facts, justifying the application of the extended period of limitation. However, the Tribunal, referring to a previous case, found in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the consultant's argument that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit in good faith, following the rules, and disclosing the credit in their returns.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of bonafide belief in availing CENVAT Credit and the obligation of officers to scrutinize self-assessed returns. The decision emphasized the need for evidence before concluding knowledge of inadmissibility and reiterated the significance of correct disclosure in returns to avoid disputes regarding credit availed on input services.