2017 (1) TMI 423 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - goods procured from 100% EOU - extended period of limitation - Held that - The duty has been paid by the respondent and as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondent is entitled to take Cenvat credit thereon. Extended period of limitation invoked - there was no mala fide intention to take Cenvat credit by the respondent - appeal barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002 regarding duty payment and Cenvat credit eligibility for a 100% EOU.
- Validity of denial of Cenvat credit to the respondent and imposition of duty, interest, and penalty.
- Consideration of limitation period for invoking extended period for denying Cenvat credit.
- Adjudication of the appeal challenging the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002, concerning the duty payment and Cenvat credit eligibility for a 100% EOU, M/s. Satya Metals, located in Jammu & Kashmir. The respondent had availed Cenvat credit on goods procured from M/s. Satya Metals, leading to a dispute regarding duty payment entitlement and Cenvat credit eligibility.

2. The Revenue contended that as M/s. Satya Metals was not entitled to the benefits of the said Notification, they were not liable to pay duty on goods cleared in DTA. Consequently, the respondent should not have been allowed to take Cenvat credit of the duty paid by M/s. Satya Metals. The Revenue appealed against the order that favored the respondent, challenging the denial of Cenvat credit.

3. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the respondent's appeal on the ground of limitation, stating that there was no mala fide intention in availing the Cenvat credit. The Revenue argued that the extended period of limitation should have been invoked, emphasizing that M/s. Satya Metals was not entitled to the benefits of the Notification, hence the duty payment and Cenvat credit were not justified.

4. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge the part of the order related to limitation, and it was undisputed that the respondent had paid duty on the goods. As per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondent was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the duty paid. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the Revenue had no case on merits, and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the entitlement of the respondent to Cenvat credit based on the duty paid on the goods procured from M/s. Satya Metals, despite the Revenue's arguments against it.