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 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (11) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Distribution of input service credit by Head Office to various units.
2. Demand for reversal of excess input service credit.
3. Application of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Commissioner (Appeals) decision confirmation of reversal of Cenvat Credit.
5. Previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues.
6. Applicability of Rule 3 and 7 of the CCR, 2004.
7. Impact of wilful suppression on tax liability.
8. Time-bar for serving Show Cause Notice.
9. Revenue loss justification for disallowance of CENVAT Credit.
10. Decision on the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

Analysis:
The case involves the distribution of input service credit by the Head Office of the appellant to its units in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. The Department alleged that the Head Office did not proportion input credit correctly, resulting in excess credit distribution to the units. A show cause notice was issued demanding reversal of excess credit, invoking Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Section 111A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reversal of Cenvat Credit, leading to the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues were raised in the appellant's other units in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. A previous Tribunal decision in the appellant's favor was cited, indicating that the matter had been previously decided. The Tribunal analyzed the application of Rule 3 and 7 of the CCR, 2004, emphasizing the need for evidence of wilful suppression to justify disallowance of credit. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments supporting the recipient's position and the time-bar for serving Show Cause Notices.

The Tribunal highlighted that the Department failed to prove revenue loss or suppression by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the disallowance of CENVAT Credit was incorrect and unsustainable. Citing relevant case law and previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence and justification for disallowing credit, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on legal principles and precedents.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates