2018 (10) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Time Limitation - welding electrodes, bars & rods, chemicals which were mainly used in further fabrication of capital goods in the factory of production - period April, 2004 to October, 2004. Held that - Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Spenta International vs. CCE 2007 (8) TMI 25 - CESTAT, MUMBAI whereby this Tribunal held that the relevant date for deciding the credit eligibility, is the date of receipt of capital goods, and not the date of utilisation. Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules do not permit cenvat credit on capital goods used exclusively in manufacture of exempted goods. It was held that credit eligibility is to be determined with respect to dutiability of the final product on the date of receipt of capital goods. The show cause notice is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation, suppression of facts etc. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice and limitation period
2. Admissibility of cenvat credit for the period April, 2004 to October, 2004 on specific items
3. Applicability of Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
4. Time-barred nature of the demand show cause notice
5. Imposition of penalties on individuals

Analysis:

1. Validity of show cause notice and limitation period:
The central issue in this appeal was whether the show cause notice was validly issued or barred by limitation. The appellant argued that the notice was time-barred as the audit was conducted in December 2005, and the notice was issued in April 2008. The appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in a similar case to support this argument.

2. Admissibility of cenvat credit for the period April, 2004 to October, 2004:
The appellant claimed entitlement to cenvat credit for items like welding electrodes, bars & rods, and chemicals used in the fabrication of capital goods. The appellant also availed credit on inputs being capital goods during this period. The appellant contended that the credit was admissible based on the date of receipt of goods/capital goods and cited relevant judgments to support this argument.

3. Applicability of Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant argued against the applicability of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that it was not applicable to inputs. The appellant maintained that since duty was paid on the date of receipt of capital goods, the provisions of Rule 6(4) did not apply.

4. Time-barred nature of the demand show cause notice:
The appellant contended that the demand show cause notice was time-barred due to the delay between the audit and the issuance of the notice. The appellant referenced a judgment to support this argument.

5. Imposition of penalties on individuals:
The order-in-original confirmed the demand under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, along with interest and penalties on individuals associated with the company. The appellant challenged the penalties imposed on the Chairman & Managing Director and the General Manager of the company.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on the merits of the case, citing precedents and consistent rulings. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was invalid due to the extended period of limitation and suppression of facts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.