2013 (10) TMI 1192 - AT - Central Excise

Interpretation of eligibility of CENVAT Credit Waiver of Pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit and penalty under Rule 15(2) of CC Rules, 2004 r.w Section 11AC of the CE Act - Held that - Following Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCEX, Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - This Tribunal has been taking a consistent view by allowing stay petition of the assessee where extended period of limitation is involved but directed predeposit, wherever demand is for normal period of limitation - the Applicant are directed to make amount as pre-deposit of Rs.50,000 upon such submission the balance dues would stand waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Partial Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of eligibility of CENVAT Credit on MS Angles, channels, plates, joists as capital goods/inputs and applicability of the Larger Bench decision of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCEX, Raipur.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata involved an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of CENVAT Credit and penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue at hand pertained to the availing of CENVAT Credit on specific items such as MS Angles, channels, plates, joists, and the interpretation of their eligibility as capital goods/inputs. The Applicant, represented by a consultant, acknowledged the demand raised for the period from June 2006-2007 to 2009-10, emphasizing that a significant portion of the demand was for the extended period, with only a small amount falling within the normal period of limitation, which they were willing to deposit.

The Revenue, represented by the ld. AR, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on the mentioned items and the relevance of the Larger Bench decision in the Vandana Global Ltd. case. The Tribunal highlighted its consistent approach of allowing stay petitions for the assessee in cases involving the extended period of limitation but requiring predeposit when the demand fell within the normal limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to make a predeposit of Rs.50,000 within six weeks from the date of the order for the demand within the normal limitation period. Upon compliance with this predeposit, the balance dues adjudged would be waived, and the recovery stayed during the pendency of the Appeal. Failure to deposit the specified amount would lead to the dismissal of the Appeal without further notice to the Applicant.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the interpretation of CENVAT Credit eligibility on specific items and the application of relevant legal precedents, ultimately directing the Applicant to make a predeposit to proceed with the Appeal process effectively.