2013 (4) TMI 81 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit in or in relation of manufacture - various items like MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Plates, etc. - Held that It is evident that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the appellant is based upon the entries contained in the ledger account maintained by the appellant. - the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct because appellant doesn t have any documentary or corroboratory evidence in support of their argument. The appellant has not produced evidence of the persons who did work of repair of furnace nor he has produced bills or account for the said repair work claimed to have been undertaken by him. Coming to the issue of limitation. On reading of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, it is clear that the Department can invoke the extended period of five years limitation in cases of fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact by the assessee or contravention of any provision of the Excise Act. - Demand confirmed - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of inadmissible Cenvat credit on various items.
2. Justification for invoking extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS Angles, MS Channels, etc., availed Cenvat credit, leading to a show cause notice for inadmissible credit. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit, imposing duty demand and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the goods were used for repairing a furnace, not for construction, and that the department had full knowledge, so the extended limitation period was unjustified. The Commissioner relied on ledger entries to conclude the goods were used for construction. The appellant's Chartered Engineer's certificate was deemed vague. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove the goods were used for manufacturing final products, supporting the Commissioner's decision.

3. Regarding the limitation issue, the Tribunal noted the Department rightly invoked the extended period due to the appellant's suppression of material facts to evade excise duty liability. As the goods were not used in manufacturing final products and the appellant concealed this fact, the extended limitation was justified. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the disallowance of Cenvat credit and the imposition of duty demand and penalty. The appellant's arguments regarding the usage of goods and the limitation period were refuted, emphasizing the importance of proving the legitimate use of goods for availing Cenvat credit and the consequences of concealing material facts to evade duty liability.