9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 298 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - trading activity - common inputs utilized for trading as well as manufacturing activity - non-maintenance of separate records - extended period of limitation - Held that - invoking the longer period is not sustainable because on the same issue earlier show-cause notices are pending decision before the Tribunal - in the case of ECE Industries ltd. 2003 (3) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , on an identical issue, the Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the demand on limitation. Thus, the longer period of limitation is not invocable as the as the appellant was issued show cause notices for the earlier period - entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against impugned order confirming demands, penalty imposition, and interest under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Analysis: The appellant filed appeals against the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order confirming demands of ?6,56,679/- and ?42,63,707/- for Peenya and Vadodara Units, respectively, along with penalties of ?10,000/- each. The Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the interest under Rule 14. The issue involved in both appeals being identical, they were disposed of by a common order. The appellant's units were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods and providing taxable output services under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. They also conducted trading activities and availed CENVAT credit on common input services used for both manufacturing and trading. Show-cause notices were issued proposing recovery of ineligible credit for trading activities, leading to demands, interest, and penalties by the Additional Commissioner. The Commissioner(Appeals) confirmed the demands and penalties but dropped the interest, prompting the present appeals. The appellant argued that the impugned orders were unsustainable due to conflicting judicial precedents and the demands being time-barred. They cited previous show-cause notices for similar grounds, pending appeals, and various Supreme Court decisions supporting their stance on limitation and penalty imposition due to interpretation of law. The appellant contended that no suppression occurred, as trading details were available in their balance sheet during the relevant period. After considering submissions and precedents, the Tribunal found the longer period of limitation unsustainable due to pending show-cause notices on the same issue and Supreme Court judgments setting aside demands on limitation grounds. Citing cases like ECE Industries Ltd. and Nizam Sugar Factory, the Tribunal held that no suppression existed, thus penalty imposition was unwarranted. Following the principles of Caprihans India Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the entire demand was time-barred and set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant solely on limitation grounds. Therefore, both appeals were allowed based on limitation, and the impugned order was set aside, as pronounced in open court on 12/01/2018.
|
