2018 (7) TMI 849 - AT - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - inter-connected/inter linked units - Show Cause Notice has been issued after two years invoking extended period and alleging suppression of facts - Held that - The appellant vide letter dated 06.01.2003 has informed the Department that they are shifting their capital goods from Unit No. 44 to Unit No. 34. The Department has not cared to respond to this letter and only after three years, on 27.04.2006, have issued a letter seeking clarification as to whether separate registration is required for Unit at Door No. 34. The appellant has responded to this letter by explaining that the manufacturing activity that is undertaken in both these units are interconnected - There is no positive act or any iota of evidence brought out to show suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with intention to evade payment of duty. The appellant has, vide letter dated 06.01.2003, informed of the shifting of capital goods - the demand invoking extended period cannot sustain. CENVAT Credit - Housekeeping Services - Maintenance and Repair Services - these services availed in the unit at Door No. 34. Housekeeping Services are availed for keeping the premises in a lean and hygienic manner - Held that - The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the Case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III Chennai Vs. CESTAT Chennai 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that even if the premises is not registered, the credit is available - credit allowed - the demand set aside on the ground of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of credit on capital goods and input services.
2. Allegation of suppression of facts and invoking extended period for demand.
3. Clarification on separate registration requirement for factory premises.
4. Disallowance of credit on Housekeeping Services and Maintenance and Repair Services.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Credit on Capital Goods and Input Services:
The appellant shifted capital goods from one unit to another within the Industrial Estate premises and informed the Department about it in 2003. Despite this, a Show Cause Notice was issued in 2016 proposing to disallow the credit on capital goods and input services. The Original Authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand in respect of credit availed on capital goods due to the limitation period. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant and set aside the demand invoking the extended period.

2. Allegation of Suppression of Facts and Invoking Extended Period:
The appellant argued that they had promptly informed the Department about the shifting of capital goods and provided clarifications regarding the interconnected manufacturing activities between the two units. Despite the explanations and clarifications provided by the appellant, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice after two years invoking the extended period. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence of suppression of facts and set aside the demand.

3. Clarification on Separate Registration Requirement:
The Department had inquired whether separate registration was required for the new premises obtained by the appellant. The appellant explained the interconnected manufacturing activities between the units and provided necessary details. The Tribunal noted the appellant's compliance with the registration requirements and found that the demand based on this issue could not be sustained.

4. Disallowance of Credit on Housekeeping Services and Maintenance and Repair Services:
The audit objection raised concerns about the credit availed on Housekeeping Services and Maintenance and Repair Services in the second unit. The Tribunal referred to a relevant High Court case to support the availability of credit even if the premises were not registered. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demands related to credit disallowance on capital goods and input services, suppression of facts, separate registration requirement, and disallowance of credit on specific services. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence of suppression and the appellant's diligence in complying with registration and disclosure requirements.