2015 (5) TMI 168 - HC - Central Excise

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts - Wrong availment of CENVAT Credit - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that extended period of limitation under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11 (A) (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted in this case - Held that - Reasons so disclosed in the order of the Commissioner have completely been ignored by the Tribunal only on the ground that the law on the legality of the Cenvat credit on the items in questions, has been declared by the Larger Bench in the year 2010 in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)), therefore, no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee, so as to justify the applicability of the longer period of limitation. - Tribunal is not justified in recording such a finding. - under Rule, 2004, a burden is cast upon the manufacturer to ensure that cenvat credit is correctly claimed by them and proper records are maintained in that regard. - The assessee, in response to the show-cause notice had stated that there is no provision in Central Excise Law to disclose the details of the credit or to submit the duty paying documents, which in our opinion is false and an attempt to deliberately contravene the provisions of the Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder with an intent to evade the duty. - facts of the present case clearly suggest willful suppression of material facts by the assessee as well as contravention of the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder with an intent to evade the demand of duty as would be covered by Clauses IV and V of Section 11 A (1) of the Act, 1944. Therefore, the invocation of the extended period of limitation in the facts of the present case is fully justified. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the extended period of limitation under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted in this case?

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extended Period of Limitation:
The central issue revolves around the Tribunal's decision that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the absence of mala fide intent on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal had ruled that since the law was clarified by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. in 2010, and earlier decisions were in favor of the assessee, no mala fide intent could be attributed to the assessee, thus precluding the invocation of an extended period of limitation.

The High Court examined whether the Tribunal's decision was justified based on the facts and legal standards. The Court noted that the assessee had availed Cenvat Credit on items classified as "capital goods," which was later found inadmissible. The department issued a show-cause notice for recovery of the Cenvat Credit along with interest and penalties, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act, 1944, due to alleged willful suppression of facts by the assessee.

The High Court scrutinized the correspondence and interactions between the assessee and the department, highlighting that the assessee had disclosed full facts about the Cenvat Credit availed. The assessee argued that the department was aware of the Cenvat Credit details and that there was no deliberate concealment. The Tribunal had accepted this argument, noting that the law was only clarified in 2010 and prior decisions were in favor of the assessee.

However, the High Court found that the Tribunal had overlooked the fact that the assessee's own submissions before the Commissioner indicated that the items in question were not used for supporting structures, contradicting their later claims of bona fide doubt. The Court emphasized that under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring correct claims and maintaining proper records. The Court concluded that the assessee's failure to disclose details and submission of false statements amounted to willful suppression and contravention of the Act and rules with an intent to evade duty.

The High Court referred to precedents, including Usha Rectifier Corporation (I) Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam vs. Mehta & Company, to support its conclusion that the extended period of limitation was justified in cases of deliberate suppression of facts and intent to evade duty.

The Court distinguished the present case from other judgments cited by the assessee, such as Continental Foundation Joint Venture and Jai Prakash Industries Ltd., noting that those cases involved genuine doubts and divergent views, whereas the present case involved clear suppression of facts.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in ruling out the extended period of limitation. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the department, and the Tribunal's order was quashed to the extent it precluded the extended period of limitation. The central excise appeal was allowed.

← Previous Next →