2016 (12) TMI 1318 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - irregular availment - Time limitation - Rule 3 of CCR, 2002/04 - Held that - all the transactions were duly recorded in the Books of Accounts already maintained and the appellant having cooperated with the Revenue both at the time of audit as well as in response to further query being made and the categorical stand taken as early as in December, 2005, the whole demand is barred by limitation, and extended period of limitation is not invokable under the facts and circumstances - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over Cenvat credit on inputs/capital goods/input services for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05.
- Allegation of inadmissible Cenvat credit utilization and demand for reversal.
- Invocation of extended period for demand recovery.
- Admissibility of Cenvat credit and cooperation with Revenue.
- Interpretational nature of the issue and absence of fraud or suppression.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Organic Chemicals & Gases, appealed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-03-2010, concerning the dispute over Cenvat credit availed on various inputs/capital goods/input services for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05. The appellant argued that the demand related to the extended period was unjustified as all transactions were duly recorded in the Books of Accounts, and they had cooperated with the Revenue during audits and subsequent queries. The appellant had taken a stand in 2005 that no reversal of Cenvat credit was necessary, and the Show Cause Notice issued in 2008 lacked substantial grounds for invoking the extended period for demand recovery.

The Tribunal noted that the issue primarily revolved around the interpretation of Cenvat credit utilization and found no evidence of fraud, suppression, or misstatement of facts with intent to evade duty payment. The substantial amounts proposed for disallowance in the Show Cause Notice were partially allowed in subsequent orders, indicating an interpretational nature of the dispute. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked based on the facts and circumstances of the case. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting the appellant any consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of cooperation with Revenue authorities, proper documentation of transactions, and the absence of fraudulent intent in determining the applicability of the extended period for demand recovery in cases involving Cenvat credit disputes. The decision highlighted the need for clear interpretation of legal provisions and the lack of evidence supporting allegations of willful misconduct to justify invoking extended periods for recovery.