9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1187 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - capital goods - denial on the ground that Depreciation availed - Department alleged that the appellant had neither disclosed/intimated the said fact of claiming depreciation under Income Tax Act nor reversed the 50% of cenvat credit irregularly availed by them, till the internal audit party noticed the same - Held that - reliance placed in the case of CCE & ST, Bangalore Vs. Suprajit Engineering Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 414 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court had held that assessee cannot simultaneously avail cenvat credit and depreciation under the Income Tax Act 1961. Time Limitation - Held that - the methodology followed by the assessee was in the knowledge of the Department but in spite of that Department did not issue the show-cause notice which was finally issued on 04.11.2010 for the period 2004 to 2007 - the entire demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of cenvat credit on capital goods - Allegation of irregularly availed cenvat credit - Demand of interest and penalty - Barred by limitation - Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules and Income Tax Act Analysis: 1. Appeal against Rejection of Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods: The appellant, a manufacturer of various products, including Flush Doors and Window Frames, availed cenvat credit on capital goods purchased during specific financial years. The Department alleged that the appellant irregularly availed cenvat credit on capital goods by claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The original authority confirmed the demand of irregularly availed cenvat credit, interest, and imposed a penalty. The appellant appealed against this decision, contending that the entire demand is barred by limitation. 2. Allegation of Irregularly Availed Cenvat Credit: The appellant argued that they acted in accordance with the prevailing Tribunal orders during the relevant period and had a bona fide belief in their entitlement to both cenvat credit and depreciation. They highlighted that the Department was aware of their methodology since the original audit in 2005, and subsequent audits in 2009, yet issued a show-cause notice in 2010. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant emphasized that suppression cannot be alleged when the facts are known to the Department. 3. Demand of Interest and Penalty: The original authority had imposed a penalty along with the demand for irregularly availed cenvat credit and interest. However, the appellant contended that the entire demand should be considered barred by limitation due to the delayed issuance of the show-cause notice, despite the Department's knowledge of the relevant facts. 4. Barred by Limitation: The crucial argument in the appeal was the limitation aspect. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their claim that the entire demand should be considered time-barred. They emphasized that the Department's delay in issuing the show-cause notice, despite being aware of the appellant's methodology, should render the demand invalid due to the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act. 5. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules and Income Tax Act: The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which held that an assessee cannot simultaneously avail cenvat credit and depreciation under the Income Tax Act. Considering the merit and limitation aspects, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the entire demand for irregularly availed cenvat credit on capital goods, interest, and penalty was time-barred due to the Department's delayed action and the appellant's bona fide belief in their entitlement to the benefits under the Cenvat Credit Rules and the Income Tax Act.
|
