2018 (2) TMI 532 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs used in the construction of residential colony adjacent to their factory in a remote location - time limitation - Held that - the demand pertaining to March 2009 was sought to be recovered by show cause notice dated 1st April 2014 and that demands for various periods, both prior and subsequent, had been issued to them between 2006 and 2011. The impugned show cause notice was issued well beyond the period of one year prescribed in section 11A of CEA 2004. The demand beyond the normal period of limitation, which the notice cannot claim to cover at all, is not recoverable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing credit of duty paid on inputs for construction.
2. Liability and penalty imposed under CENVAT Credit Rules.
3. Show cause notice issued beyond the prescribed period.
4. Application of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro case.

Issue 1: Availing credit of duty paid on inputs for construction
The appellant was accused of availing credit of duty paid on inputs used in constructing a residential colony near their factory. The liability, interest, and penalty were imposed under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 2: Liability and penalty under CENVAT Credit Rules
The appellant contested that the demand for March 2009 was raised through a show cause notice in April 2014, which was beyond the one-year period prescribed in the Central Excise Act, 2004. Several demands for different periods between 2006 and 2011 were issued, making the impugned notice time-barred.

Issue 3: Show cause notice beyond prescribed period
Referring to the judgment in Larsen & Toubro case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the demand beyond the normal limitation period cannot be recovered. The court cited previous judgments to support the view that issuing multiple notices based on the same set of facts for extended periods is not permissible. Consequently, the impugned demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issue 4: Application of Larsen & Toubro case
The decision in Larsen & Toubro case was pivotal in determining the outcome of the appeal. The court relied on the Supreme Court's stance regarding the limitation period for recovering demands, emphasizing that facts already known to the authorities cannot be used to allege suppression by the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the availing of duty credit, liability under CENVAT Credit Rules, the timeliness of show cause notices, and the application of legal precedents like the Larsen & Toubro case in determining the outcome of the appeal.