9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 269 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input - furnace oil - The case of the Department is that the CENVAT Credit in respect of furnace oil is admissible only to the quantity attributed to the excisable goods and not for the entire hotel - time limitation - Held that - the CENVAT Credit availed of the furnace oil, which was used as a fuel in boiler for generating steam, the said fact was completely in the knowledge of the department inasmuch as the appellant declared all the information in their application for registration and ground plan - entire information regarding availment of CENVAT Credit on the furnace oil was in the knowledge of the department. Therefore, there is absolutely no case of suppression of facts on part of the appellant in availing the CENVAT Credit on the furnace oil - demand is time barred - appeal allowed on limitation - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit for furnace oil usage in a hotel; Time-barred demand for CENVAT Credit.
Analysis: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit: The appellant, running a hotel with a Central Excise Registration for manufacturing goods in the Bakery Kitchen section, availed CENVAT Credit for furnace oil used to generate steam for various purposes within the hotel. The Department contended that the credit should only apply to the quantity related to excisable goods. The appellant argued that as per Rule 2(g) of Cenvat Credit Rules, credit for inputs used within the factory premises is admissible, even if the steam generated is used for non-manufacturing purposes. The appellant emphasized that since the entire steam was utilized within the factory, credit should be allowed. The lower authorities relied on Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which the appellant argued was not applicable to furnace oil. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's interpretation, allowing the credit due to the steam being used within the factory premises for various hotel operations. Time-barred demand for CENVAT Credit: The appellant contended that the demand for CENVAT Credit for the period 2002-04, raised in 2006, was time-barred. The appellant had declared the entire hotel as their factory premises during registration, regularly filing returns disclosing all relevant information. Citing precedents and decisions, the appellant argued against any suppression of facts, asserting that the demand was beyond the statutory time limit. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the appellant had transparently disclosed all relevant details during registration and subsequent communications with the Department. As the Department was aware of the furnace oil usage and CENVAT Credit availed, the demand was deemed time-barred, and the appeal was allowed on the grounds of limitation without delving into the case's merits. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal solely on the basis of the time-barred demand for CENVAT Credit, emphasizing the importance of transparent disclosures and adherence to statutory limitations in tax matters.
|
