9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1051 - AT - Central ExciseUtilization of Cenvat Credit available under Basic Excise Duty for payment of Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess - time limitation - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res-integra. This Bench in the case of M/S GODREJ CONSUMERS PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, SILIGURI AND M/S GERMAN REMEDIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, SILIGURI 2023 (9) TMI 58 - CESTAT KOLKATA had relied on the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Guwahati in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS KAMAKHYA COSMETICS PHARMACEUTICAL PVT. LTD. 2012 (7) TMI 902 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT , and has held ' there was no bar to utilize Cenvat credit of Basic Excise Duty for payment of Education Cess.' - Since the issue in the present case is identical. Respectfully following the decision of the cited case law, the appeal is allowed on merits. Time limitation - HELD THAT - The issue is that of interpretation which got clarified only after the issue reaching the Guwahati High Court, the Department has not made out any case of suppression on the part of the Appellant. Therefore, the confirmed demand for the extended period stands set aside on account of time bar also. The appeal is allowed both on account of merit as well as on account of limitation.
Issues:
Claim of utilizing Cenvat Credit for payment of Education Cess and SHE Cess under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and area-based exemption under Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007. Time bar for confirmed demand for the period April 2011 to May 2013. Interpretation of the law regarding the utilization of Cenvat Credit of Basic Excise Duty for payment of Education Cess and SHE Cess. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a manufacturer of medicaments, claimed the benefit of area-based exemption under Notification No. 20/2007-CE and utilized Cenvat Credit available under Basic Excise Duty for payment of Education Cess and SHE Cess. A Show Cause Notice was issued challenging this practice and demanding payment of Rs. 68,03,373. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue had been settled previously by a Bench in a similar case, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of UOI Vs. Kamakhya Cosmetics & Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. The counsel contended that the appellant is entitled to use Cenvat Credit of Basic Excise Duty for payment of Education Cess and SHE Cess, as established in previous rulings. 3. The counsel further argued that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred for the period between April 2011 to May 2013, as the debiting of Basic Excise Duty for payment of Education Cess and SHE Cess was disclosed in the monthly Returns, and the Department was aware of the appellant's operations under the exemption notification. 4. The Authorized Representative for the Respondent reiterated the lower authority's findings and supported the confirmed demand. 5. After hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled in previous cases, specifically referring to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The Tribunal held that the appellant was indeed entitled to utilize the Cenvat Credit of Basic Excise Duty for payment of Education Cess and SHE Cess. 6. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue was one of interpretation, which was clarified only after it reached the Guwahati High Court. Consequently, the Department failed to establish any suppression by the Appellant, leading to the confirmed demand for the extended period being set aside on account of time bar. 7. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits, following the precedent set by the cited case law, and granted the appellant consequential relief, if any, as per law. The cross objection was also disposed of during the proceedings. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedent and interpretation of relevant laws.
|
