Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (8) TMI 1465 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Eligibility of the appellant to take CENVAT Credit for goods received from other manufacturers.
2. Time-barred nature of the Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of the appellant to take CENVAT Credit for goods received from other manufacturers:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Ferro Silicon, received a large order from Steel Authority of India (SAIL) but lacked the capacity to fulfill it with their own goods. They opted to buy goods from other manufacturers, reprocess them, and then supply them to SAIL. The dispute arose when the Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that the appellant was not eligible for CENVAT Credit on goods received from other manufacturers as they were already the appellant's finished goods. The appellant argued that Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 allowed for CENVAT Credit on finished goods regardless of the manufacturer. They demonstrated that the duty paid on the goods sold to SAIL exceeded the CENVAT Credit taken, resulting in a net payment of Excise Duty by the appellant. Citing precedents and legal provisions, the appellant contended that they were entitled to the credit. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the duty paid on goods received could be claimed as CENVAT Credit as long as it equaled or exceeded the credit taken. The Tribunal set aside the demand, ruling in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2: Time-barred nature of the Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice issued in July 2013 was partly time-barred, covering the period from December 2009 to February 2013. They contended that their communication in December 2009 had informed the Department of their procurement process, and they had regularly filed returns, indicating no suppression of facts. The appellant asserted that the confirmed demand for the period December 2009 to May 2010 should be set aside due to the time bar. The Department, however, maintained that the appellant's activities did not constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, justifying the demand. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, holding that the Show Cause Notice for the specified period was time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds of limitation as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal both on merits regarding the eligibility for CENVAT Credit and on account of the time-barred nature of the Show Cause Notice. The appellant was deemed eligible for any consequential relief as per the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates