2017 (6) TMI 1001 - HC - Central Excise

Time limitation - CENVAT credit - steel wire - Held that - the period of limitation cannot, but commence from the date, when, the order is signed and thereafter, upon its receipt by the Assessee - application allowed - decided in favor of applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against two separate orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Claim for MODVAT credit by the Assessee.
3. Denial of MODVAT credit for steel wire.
4. Rectification application before the Tribunal.
5. Interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment.
6. Commencement of the period of limitation for the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeals were filed against two separate orders passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by the Assessee, Ramco Cements Limited.

Issue 2:
The Assessee claimed MODVAT credit for various goods during the period between April 1997 and May 1997, totaling to ?19,11,892. The Tribunal accepted the credit for six items but denied it for steel wire, relying on a previous order in the Assessee's own case.

Issue 3:
The Assessee obtained a favorable judgment from the Supreme Court related to the goods in question, steel wire, and filed a rectification application before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application despite being aware of the Supreme Court's judgment.

Issue 4:
The Assessee argued that based on the Supreme Court's judgment, the appeals should be allowed. The Revenue initially contended that the goods in question might not be covered by the Supreme Court's judgment but later acknowledged that if covered, the Assessee should succeed.

Issue 5:
Upon examination of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Assessee, the Court confirmed that steel wire was part of the Supreme Court proceedings. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's observations supporting the Assessee's position, leading to the allowance of one appeal.

Issue 6:
Regarding the period of limitation for the Tribunal's order, the Court noted a misdirection by the Tribunal in law, stating that the limitation should commence from the date the order is signed, not when it is dictated in Court. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order related to limitation.

In conclusion, both appeals were allowed in favor of the Assessee based on the Supreme Court's judgment and the incorrect interpretation of the period of limitation by the Tribunal. No costs were awarded in this matter.