9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1179 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - whether the respondent was eligible for CENVAT Credit on the steel goods namely, round channel, parallel flat, Mill plates, Angles, MS Beam, MS Bars, Plate, HR Coil etc? - Boards Circular No. 267/11/2010-CX dated 8.7.2010. Held that - the credit on these items is admissible atleast for the period prior to 7.7.2009. After 7.7.2009, these items were excluded from the purview of input - In the present case, period involved is 2007, therefore, the amendment made in the definition of input services, which is effective from 7.7.2009 is not applicable in the year 2007 - input used for manufacture/fabrication of various capital goods is allowed for CENVAT credit. Time limitation - Held that - the period involved is March, 2007 whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 21.3.2012. Therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked as no suppression of facts or mala fide can be attributed to the respondent. Appeal dismissed on merits as well as on time bar - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved: Eligibility for CENVAT Credit on steel goods, application of Larger Bench judgment, admissibility of CENVAT Credit on steel items, limitation period for demand, invocation of extended period.
Eligibility for CENVAT Credit on steel goods: The issue revolved around whether the respondent was entitled to CENVAT Credit on various steel goods. The adjudicating authority had disallowed the credit, leading to an appeal. The appellate authority rejected the appeal based on a Larger Bench judgment. The Tribunal remanded the appeal for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to assess how the inputs were utilized. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal after considering detailed submissions on the utilization of steel items for manufacturing capital goods. Application of Larger Bench judgment: The Revenue argued that the steel items were neither inputs nor capital goods, citing judgments in support of their claim. The respondent contended that the matter was settled, emphasizing that the steel items were admissible for CENVAT Credit before a specific amendment. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the Revenue's reliance on the Larger Bench judgment was not applicable given the subsequent High Court ruling and the specific period involved in this case. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on steel items: The Tribunal analyzed various judgments and found that CENVAT Credit on steel items was admissible, especially for the period before a specific amendment. The Commissioner's order highlighted the utilization of steel items for manufacturing capital goods, leading to the allowance of the respondent's appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the principles established in the judgments and the specific facts of the case. Limitation period for demand: The respondent raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the demand was time-barred based on precedents where demands were held time-barred despite invoking a specific judgment. The Tribunal considered the timeline of events and concluded that the extended period could not be invoked in this case due to the absence of suppression of facts or mala fide intentions by the respondent. Invocation of extended period: The Tribunal noted that various Division Bench orders had favored the assessee before the matter was referred to the Larger Bench. Considering the timeline and lack of evidence of suppression or mala fide actions by the respondent, the extended period was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal on both merit and time bar, thereby disposing of the Cross-Objection as well.
|
