2017 (9) TMI 983 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - M.S. Ingots, beams, channels, HR Plates, M.S. Joists etc. - whether Cenvat credit on structural steel such as M.S. Ingots, beams, channels, HR Plates, M.S. Joists etc. is admissible to the appellant for the period May, 2006 to February, 2011? - time limitation - Held that - all the invoices on which appellant have been taking credit in respect of steel items were presented before the Jurisdictional Superintendent who has verified all the invoices and thereafter issued certificate therefore the fact of availment of Cenvat credit on the said steel items was very much in the knowledge of the department - the demand is clearly hit by limitation - demand for normal period is recoverable - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Admissibility of Cenvat credit on structural steel items like M.S. Ingots, beams, channels, HR Plates, M.S. Joists for the period May 2006 to February 2011 and whether the demand for such credit is time-barred.

Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit: The appellant argued that the case was decided against them based on a Larger bench judgment in the case of Vandana Global Ltd, which was reversed for the period before 7-7-2009 when the definition of input was amended. The appellant contended that the amendment dated 7-7-2009 is not clarificatory and does not apply retrospectively. The appellant also claimed that there was no suppression of facts as they had provided all necessary information to the department, including original invoices for duty credit reversal. The appellant's counsel emphasized that regular correspondence was maintained, and all relevant information was within the department's knowledge, thus supporting their claim for the admissibility of the credit.

2. Revenue's stance: The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, relied on various judgments to support their argument that credit on structural steel items is not admissible. They cited cases such as M/s Tower Vision India Pvt Ltd, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Vodafone India Ltd., and others to assert that the credit should not be allowed. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order and maintained their position against the admissibility of the credit.

3. Judicial decision: The Member(Judicial) carefully considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records. The decision highlighted that the Commissioner(Appeals) had based the non-admissibility of Cenvat credit on steel items solely on the Vandana Global Ltd case. However, this decision was overruled by a High Court judgment in another case, establishing that the credit on steel items was not admissible post the amendment dated 7-7-2009. Regarding the time-bar issue, it was noted that the appellant had provided all necessary documents for duty credit reversal, and the department was well aware of the credit availed. As a result, the demand was deemed time-barred for the extended period, but recoverable for the normal period. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was partly allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment delves into the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the final decision rendered by the Member(Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.