9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1051 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - denial on the ground of non-submission of required documents i.e. STTG Certificates which according to the Department is a primary and essential documents to avail the Cenvat credit - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - This issue was considered by the Division Bench of Mumbai Bench CESTAT in the case of JSW Steel Ltd. 2022 (3) TMI 913 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein after considering the Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules the Tribunal has held If the requirements of Rule 3 are satisfied the credit could not have been denied. Further Rule 9(2) read with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules provides that any document which contains the details as prescribed under Rule 4A shall be considered as a proper duty paying document for all the purposes including availment of cenvat credit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana in the case of M/s Salasar Steel Structural Pvt. Ltd. on identical issue has allowed the Cenvat Credit and has held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely on account of non production of STTG Certificates. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The Revenue has not been able to establish any of the ingredients mentioned in Section 11A(4) - extended period cannot be invoked. Conclusion - i) The denial of Cenvat credit based on the absence of STTG Certificates was not valid. ii) Extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed.
The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Denial of Cenvat credit on the grounds of non-submission of required documents (STTG Certificates).2. Interpretation of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. Application of precedents in similar cases regarding denial of Cenvat credit.4. Treatment of competing arguments regarding the necessity of STTG Certificates for availing Cenvat credit.5. Examination of the invocation of the extended period of limitation.The Court's detailed analysis of the identified issues is as follows:- Relevant legal framework and precedents:The Court examined Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which governs the admissibility of Cenvat credit. It also referenced various precedents such as the case of JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner and decisions from different benches of the Tribunal.- Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court interpreted Rule 9 in conjunction with Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules to determine the admissibility of Cenvat credit. It emphasized that if the requirements of Rule 3 are met, the credit cannot be denied solely based on the absence of STTG Certificates. The Court also cited judgments from the Bombay High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court supporting the admissibility of credit based on proper documentation and payment of taxes.- Key evidence and findings:The key evidence revolved around the appellant's failure to produce STTG Certificates as required under Rule 9. The Court noted that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit without these certificates, leading to a demand for recovery of the credit along with penalties.- Application of law to facts:The Court applied the legal framework to the facts of the case, emphasizing that the denial of Cenvat credit solely on the basis of non-submission of STTG Certificates was not justified. It highlighted that the appellant had paid service tax and availed credit, and the absence of specific prescribed documents should not be a ground for denial.- Treatment of competing arguments:The appellant argued that various Tribunal decisions supported the allowance of Cenvat credit without STTG Certificates. The appellant also contended that the demand was time-barred as there was no evidence of suppression of material facts to evade duty.- Conclusions:The Court concluded that the denial of Cenvat credit based on the absence of STTG Certificates was not valid. It set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The Court also rejected the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to the lack of evidence supporting it.Significant holdings:The Court established the core principle that the denial of Cenvat credit should not be solely based on the non-submission of specific documents if the requirements of Rule 3 are met. It determined that the appellant was entitled to the credit despite the absence of STTG Certificates and that the demand was not sustainable in law.Overall, the judgment focused on the admissibility of Cenvat credit in the absence of prescribed documents, emphasizing the importance of compliance with Rule 3 over procedural requirements like STTG Certificates.
|
