9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 12 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - whether the Central Excise authorities can review the assessment of duty paid by supplier at the end of the recipient? - Held that - This question of law has already been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. 2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be challenged by revenue in charge of recipient unit - the assessment at the end of the appellants cannot be reopened and the cenvat credit availed by them has been correctly availed. Extended period of limitation - Held that - Revenue is not justified in contending that the appellant had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that appropriate duty had been paid on the said goods or the credit was taken wrongly - there is no intent to suppress or deliberately avail excess credit. Hence extended period is not applicable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Allegation of availing excess cenvat credit based on DPCO prices. 2. Justification of demand by Revenue. 3. Applicability of DPCO prices and High Court orders on cenvat credit. 4. Bar on limitation for demand. 5. Legal precedent and judgments relied upon by the parties. Issue 1: Allegation of availing excess cenvat credit based on DPCO prices: The case involved the appellants availing cenvat credit on Cloxacillin Sodium Compacted and Cloxacillin Sodium Sterlite at rates higher than the DPCO fixed prices. The Revenue contended that excess credits amounting to ?14,54,724/- were wrongly availed by the appellants during March 2000 to December 2002. Issue 2: Justification of demand by Revenue: The adjudicating authority had dropped most of the demand except for ?77,520/- on Cloxacillin Sodium Compacted for the period 01.03.2000 to 30.06.2000. The demand was based on the DPCO prices and the duty paid by the supplier, which the Revenue claimed should have been taken as cenvat credit by the appellants. Issue 3: Applicability of DPCO prices and High Court orders on cenvat credit: The appellants argued that during the relevant period, the Bombay High Court had set aside the DPCO operation, allowing suppliers to invoice prices higher than DPCO rates. They contended that they acted in accordance with the law prevailing at that time, and the demand raised post the Supreme Court's decision in 2003 was not valid. Issue 4: Bar on limitation for demand: The appellants asserted that the demand was time-barred as there was no suppression of facts on their part. They highlighted that the High Court order provided a legal basis for their actions, and there was no intent to deliberately avail excess credit. Issue 5: Legal precedent and judgments relied upon by the parties: The appellants relied on various judgments, including Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd., to support their argument that the assessment of duty paid by the supplier cannot be reviewed at the end of the recipient. They emphasized that the cenvat credit availed by them was legitimate based on the prevailing legal framework during the relevant period. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) both on merits and limitation grounds. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedent, the applicability of DPCO prices, and the timing of High Court and Supreme Court decisions in determining the validity of the cenvat credit availed by the appellants.
|
