2019 (2) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - it is alleged that plea of limitation is not considered - issue pertained to wrong availment of CENVAT credit - Held that - Any submission made to the effect that all the details had been placed on record before the central excise/ service tax authorities would not come to their assistance in support of their plea against recovery owing to limitation of time prescribed in section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. With the finding that the applicants were ineligible for the CENVAT credit, it would be improper to permit utilization of the CENVAT credit. Hence the aspect of limitation was rightly not required to be considered - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistakes in final orders, Plea of limitation, Wrong availment of CENVAT credit

In the present case, the issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the rectification of mistakes in final orders A/92338/2017 and A/92328/2017 dated 28th July 2017, specifically regarding the plea of limitation. The Learned Consultant for the applicants argued that the plea of limitation, which had not been disposed of, should be considered for incorporation and decision. He contended that despite regular filing of returns by the applicant and the lack of established suppression on their part, credit had been denied due to insufficient details in the invoices against which credit had been availed. He relied on the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Pushp Enterprises [2011 (22) STR 299 (Tri.-Del.)].

On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent argued that matters not pressed during the hearing, whether orally or in written submissions, do not have to be considered by the Tribunal in disposing of an appeal. He cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd v. Union of India [2017 (49) STR 467 (Bom.)] to support his assertion.

The Tribunal found that the main issue in the dispute was the wrong availment of CENVAT credit. It was noted that any submission claiming that all details had been provided to the central excise/service tax authorities would not assist in supporting a plea against recovery due to the limitation of time prescribed in section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the applicants were deemed ineligible for the CENVAT credit, allowing the utilization of such credit would be improper. Therefore, the aspect of limitation was correctly not required to be considered in this case.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applications for rectification were without merit and rejected them accordingly. The judgment was dictated in court by the Member (Technical) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.