2019 (3) TMI 949 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - removal of capital goods as such to their other units from June 2006 to December 2007 - time limitation - Held that - The present proceedings are surely hit by limitation. Having issued an earlier SCN on 19.02.2007 covering the period February 2006 to June 2006 the subsequent SCN should have been issued within the normal period and without invocation of extended period of demand - the present SCN issued only on 25.08.2009 for the period June 2006 to December 2007 only is surely hit by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing of cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods.
2. Removal of capital goods without discharging the credit availed.
3. Show cause notice for demand of cenvat credit, interest, and penalties.
4. Appellant's arguments on exemption, lapse of credit, and time bar.
5. Respondent's arguments on compliance with Rule 3(5) and time bar.
6. Adjudication on time bar and limitation of demand.

Analysis:

Availing of Cenvat Credit:
The appellants were involved in the manufacture of cotton yarn and had availed cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. They later started availing exemption from duty on final products from a specific date. However, it was discovered during an audit that the appellants had removed cenvat availed capital goods to other units without discharging the credit availed, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice proposing a substantial demand.

Appellant's Arguments:
The appellants argued that upon opting for exemption, the balance of credit should lapse, and they should not be required to pay any amount for the removed capital goods. They contended that once exemption was chosen, the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules should not apply. Additionally, they raised the issue of time bar, citing previous tribunal decisions and the demand being hit by limitation.

Respondent's Arguments:
The respondent argued that even with exemption, the appellants were still required to comply with Rule 3(5) regarding the payment for removed capital goods. They highlighted the need to pay the credit originally availed on such goods and rejected the appellant's claim of being out of the cenvat scheme. The respondent also contested the time bar, emphasizing that the removal of capital goods was not informed to the department until after an audit investigation.

Adjudication on Time Bar:
The tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the time bar. It was noted that the department had delayed issuing the show cause notice significantly after being informed of the removal of machinery, leading to a conclusion that the demand was hit by limitation. Citing previous judgments, the tribunal ruled that the show cause notice issued for the period in question was indeed time-barred, thereby setting aside the impugned order based on this aspect alone.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the crucial aspects of the judgment, including the issues of availing cenvat credit, removal of capital goods, arguments presented by both parties, and the final adjudication on the time bar issue, ultimately resulting in the appeal being allowed on the grounds of limitation.