Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 999 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - Manpower Supply Services - Security Services - Revenue objected to the same on the ground that the services stand utilized by Unit-II & III and the credit stand availed by Unit-I and IV and Unit-II & III who were not registered with the department under Central Excise - Held that - reliance placed in the Tribunal s decision in the case of S.G. Zaveri Pharmapack Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2007 (3) TMI 156 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it was observed that Cenvat credit in respect of captive goods cannot be denied to the manufacturing unit if the same is installed at the job working premises - In as much as admittedly all the four units belong to the same assesse, their admissibility to the credit is required to be adjudged in the light of the above decision of the Tribunal, for which purpose I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority. Extended period of limitation - two SCNs stand issued on 23.03.2015 pertains to the period April 2011 to December 2014 and the third SCN dated 18.01.2016 pertains to the period January 2015 to October 2015. As such, all the three SCNs stand issued by invoking the extended period of limitation - Held that - the extended period was not available to the Revenue, however, a part of the demand also falls within the limitation period. As the matter is being remanded, the adjudicating authority would examine the appellants liability to pay tax, if at all only for the period falling under the limitation. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Availability of service tax credit, denial of Cenvat credit, extended period of limitation, imposition of penalty
The judgment addresses the issue of availability of service tax credit on Manpower Supply Services and Security Services utilized by Unit-II & III. The Revenue objected to the credit on the basis that the services were utilized by units different from those availing the credit. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, and the appellate authority increased the penalty imposed on the appellant. However, the judicial member found that denial of Cenvat credit solely based on the units utilizing the services was not justified, citing relevant precedents. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for further examination. Regarding the extended period of limitation, the judgment notes that three Show Cause Notices (SCNs) were issued invoking the extended period for availing credit from April 2011 to October 2015. The judicial member referenced precedents to establish that if the credit was reflected in statutory records without evidence of malafide, the appellant could not be penalized for suppression or misstatement. It was held that the extended period was not justifiable, and the matter was remanded for examination of the appellant's liability within the limitation period. The judgment also touches upon the issue of denial of Cenvat credit for moulds sent to job workers, directing the adjudicating authority to consider the legal principles established in relevant Tribunal cases. The appellant was granted the opportunity to contest the demand based on legal grounds and precedent decisions. Lastly, the judgment addresses the imposition of penalty, concluding that as the extended period was deemed unjustified due to lack of suppression by the appellant, the penalty imposed was set aside. The appellant was given the chance to present their case and contest the demand based on legal grounds and precedent decisions.
|