9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1336 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - capital goods or not - square rail - input services - insurance premium on motor vehicles owned by the Appellant - violation of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - duty paying invoices - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - penalty. Denial of credit of 50% amounting to Rs.17,650/-, which has been used for construction of support structures for movement of cranes - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of EURO CONTAINERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-I 2013 (9) TMI 1089 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where reliance has been placed on Tribunal in the case of Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I 2013 (5) TMI 241 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the steel items used for fabrication of Gantry rails on which the EOT cranes moves would be eligible for Cenvat credit - the denial of credit cannot be sustained and is set aside. Denial of credit of Rs.5,799/- for the financial year 2010-11, out of total credit taken amounting to Rs.10,907/- of Service Tax paid on the insurance premium of the motor vehicles owned by the Appellant and used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 - HELD THAT - For the year 2010-11, the Service Tax paid on the insurance premium paid on the motor vehicles which is available to them as input service under Rule 2(l). It is found that the service on which the above credit had been taken is covered under the definition of input service w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Accordingly, the denial of credit is set aside. Denial of credit of Rs.2,80,091/- for violation of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - It is found from the records that the Appellant had already approached the jurisdictional Commissioner vide their application dated 28.05.2013 sharing their concern regarding the difficulty they were facing in accounting the returned goods in the ERP SAP system and the Ld. Commissioner had acknowledged vide his letter dated 11.12.2013 appreciating their concern and guided them to observe certain conditions. It was further submitted that the Appellant all along followed those conditions while accounting for the rejected goods. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21.01.2014 demanding duty for the period 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 (upto September 2013) by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of willful suppression of facts - As the Appellants are filing statutory monthly returns showing clearance of the impugned goods and all along they were in communication with the Department, therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable. Hence, the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is barred by limitation, and is accordingly set aside - thus, demand for the normal period along with interest is upheld. Penalty - HELD THAT - The allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable therefore penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is also set aside. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Denial of credit on square rail 2. Denial of credit on insurance premium for motor vehicles 3. Denial of credit for violation of Central Excise Rules and Cenvat Credit Rules Issue 1 - Denial of credit on square rail: The appellant claimed 50% credit treating the amount as capital goods. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision regarding the eligibility of steel items for Cenvat credit when used in fabrication of gantry rails for EOT cranes. The Tribunal held that the denial of credit cannot be sustained and set it aside. Issue 2 - Denial of credit on insurance premium for motor vehicles: The appellant faced denial of credit for an amount of Rs.5,799/- for the financial year 2010-11 out of the total credit taken on Service Tax paid on insurance premium of motor vehicles. The Tribunal found that the service on which the credit was taken falls under the definition of input service w.e.f. 01.04.2011, thus setting aside the denial of credit. Issue 3 - Denial of credit for violation of Central Excise Rules and Cenvat Credit Rules: The appellant filed an application citing difficulties in following certain rules regarding the return of rejected goods due to the controlled features of the SAP ERP system used by them. The Adjudicating authority observed discrepancies in the credit availed on rejected goods and duty payment on clearance at the depot end. The Commissioner(Appeals) noted the lack of submission of accounts of returned goods by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the demand beyond the normal period of limitation was not sustainable due to the appellant's regular communication with the Department, setting aside the demand for the extended period. The penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also set aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by upholding the demand for the normal period along with interest, setting aside the denial of credit on square rail and insurance premium, and ruling in favor of the appellant on the penalty issue.
|
