2017 (9) TMI 1052 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - time limitation - Held that - from the Show Cause Notice that the audit was conducted during the period 26.09.2008 to 30.09.2008 and Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.12.2011 demanding the Cenvat Credit for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 - The Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2016 (1) TMI 520 - CESTAT NEW DELHI on the identical issue held that the demand for the extended period is not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on specific items under Central Excise Tariff Act for the period 2006-09.
2. Disallowance of Cenvat credit by adjudicating authority.
3. Setting aside of the adjudication order by Commissioner(Appeals).
4. Appeal filed by Revenue challenging the Commissioner(Appeals) decision.
5. Barred by limitation issue.
6. Interpretation of self-assessment system regarding submission of Cenvat Credit details.
7. Reference to relevant case laws for proper appreciation of the case.
8. Tribunal's decision on the demand for extended period.
9. Application of law regarding suppression of facts and deliberate omission.
10. Burden of proof on allegations of mala fide intentions.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved a case where a Show Cause Notice was issued to deny Cenvat Credit on specific items under the Central Excise Tariff Act for the period 2006-09. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit, leading to a penalty. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) set aside this decision, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal challenging this order. The main contention was the limitation aspect, with the Commissioner(Appeals) ruling the demand as time-barred due to the self-assessment system and lack of specific details required in returns.

The Tribunal examined the case in detail, considering the grounds of appeal reiterated by the Revenue. It was highlighted that the demand for Cenvat Credit was set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals) due to being time-barred, as per the limitation period. The Tribunal referenced the case of Vandana Global Ltd. and other relevant judgments to support the decision. It was noted that the audit leading to the Show Cause Notice was conducted earlier, and the demand was made after a significant delay, impacting the validity of the claim.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to various case laws such as Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. and Continental Foundation Jt. V. Commr. of C.Ex., Chandigarh-1 to emphasize the importance of bona fide belief, suppression of facts, and deliberate omission in such cases. The Tribunal concluded that the demand for the extended period was not sustainable in this scenario, considering the legal precedents and the specifics of the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal based on the grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit.

In summary, the judgment delved into the intricacies of Cenvat Credit denial, limitation periods, self-assessment systems, and legal principles related to suppression of facts. By analyzing the case in light of relevant case laws and legal precedents, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive decision upholding the Commissioner(Appeals) ruling and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.