2020 (10) TMI 863 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - capital goods or inputs - Dumpers/trippers - time limitation - period in dispute is May, 2008 to March, 2009 - HELD THAT - The present case can be disposed off on limitation itself without going into the merit of the case. The appellant have bonafidely availed the Cenvat Credit in respect of Dumpers/trippers and the details of the credit was declared in their ST-3 Returns. Moreover, on the query from the Range Officer, the appellant have submitted invoice wise details of credit which contained the Cenvat Credit taken on invoices of Dumpers/trippers also. Therefore, there is no suppression or wilful suppression of facts to take the undue benefit of Cenvat Credit on the part of the appellant. It is also observed that the issue involves interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules - On the same issue number of judgments were passed wherein the tribunal has allowed the credit considering the same goods i.e. Dumpers/trippers as inputs. Thus, it is clear that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant in availing the Cenvat Credit on Dumpers/trippers therefore, the entire demand raised beyond the normal period is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit on Dumpers/trippers as capital goods or inputs.
2. Time-barred nature of the demand.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availment of Cenvat Credit on Dumpers/trippers
The case involved the appellant, engaged in providing mining services, who availed Cenvat Credit on Dumpers/trippers. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the credit was wrongly availed, leading to the denial of the credit. The appellant argued that Dumpers/trippers should be considered as inputs based on various judgments, including the cases of ADITYA CEMENT, IBC LTD., HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD., and others. The appellant contended that the definition of inputs under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is broad enough to cover Dumpers/trippers. Additionally, the appellant argued that even if the credit was wrongly taken under capital goods, if eligible as input, it should not be considered as wrong availment, citing cases like MODI RUBBER LTD. and JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS.

Issue 2: Time-barred nature of the demand
The appellant claimed that the entire demand was time-barred as they had disclosed the availed Cenvat Credit in their ST-3 Returns, and provided details to the concerned Superintendent of Central Excise. The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts, as all information verified by Audit Officers was available to the jurisdictional range officers. The appellant emphasized that since the issue involved interpretation of Cenvat Rules, the extended period should not have been invoked for the demand.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the appellant had bonafidely availed the Cenvat Credit on Dumpers/trippers and declared the details in their ST-3 Returns. The Tribunal noted that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant to unduly benefit from the credit. Considering the interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules in various judgments, the Tribunal decided that the demand could be disposed of on the ground of limitation itself without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal cited several judgments, such as B Girijapathi Reddy & Company Vs. CCE, Guntur and Adani Gas Ltd Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, to support its decision that the demand was time-barred due to no suppression of facts by the appellant. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation and allowed the appeal.