2018 (4) TMI 1941 - HC - Central Excise

Input tax credit - goods or an immovable property - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - There is no substantial question of law, which enables us to entertain this Appeal. The matter has been decided in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. For these reasons, this Appeal cannot be entertained. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of eligibility for Cenvat Credit on immovable property
- Sustainability of demand within the limitation period
- Imposition of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994

Interpretation of eligibility for Cenvat Credit on immovable property:
The High Court considered the appeal filed by the Revenue against an order dated March 16, 2015, focusing on the issue of availing input tax credit for immovable property. Despite previous authoritative pronouncements, the matter was debated again, leading to a final settlement that clarified that credit for input tax could not be availed for immovable property. The Tribunal partially sustained the Revenue's demand within the limitation period, excluding the penalty due to the debatable nature of the legal issue.

Sustainability of demand within the limitation period:
The Tribunal's decision to sustain the demand for duty and interest within the limitation period was based on the interpretation of Cenvat Credit availed and utilized by the appellants. The Tribunal upheld demands within the limitation period, confirming them along with interest. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the issue was interpretative and required settlement by the Court, leading to the set aside of penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Imposition of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994:
In paragraphs 32, 33, and 34 of the impugned order, the Tribunal's reasoning was detailed, highlighting the arguments on limitation and the interpretative nature of the issue regarding the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on towers and buildings. The Tribunal set aside all penalties imposed on the appellants, invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court, after reviewing these paragraphs, found no substantial question of law to entertain the appeal, as the matter was decided based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Tribunal's view was not perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the record, thus deeming the appeal devoid of merits with no costs awarded.