2018 (4) TMI 353 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT/MODVAT Credit - machines transferred to appellant - time limitation - section 11 A of the CEA 1944 - Held that - the said goods had been transferred on 8th July, 2007 whereas show cause notice was issued on 3rd August, 2012 which is in absence of any allegation that the enumerated elements for invoking the extended period - demand barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged availment of excess MODVAT Credit on machines transferred.
2. Appeal against order-in-appeal dated 8th January 2015.
3. Allegation of valuation discrepancy on printing machinery.
4. Bar of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Appeal by Revenue against modification of demand.

Analysis:
The case involved M/S PRS Permacel Pvt Ltd appealing against an order-in-appeal dated 8th January 2015 regarding the alleged excess MODVAT Credit on machines transferred to them. The dispute arose from the valuation of printing machinery transferred by M/S Johnson & Johnson Ltd to the appellant, where depreciation was allowed at 2.5% per quarter instead of relying on the original duty paying document. The appellant raised multiple issues challenging the impugned order, while the Revenue also appealed against the modified demand upheld by the original authority.

During the hearing, the Learned Counsel for the appellant contended primarily on the bar of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was argued that the show cause notice issued on 3rd August 2012, well beyond the transfer date of 8th July 2007, did not meet the criteria for invoking the extended period for recovery of duties. As there were no allegations supporting the extended period, the demand was deemed to fail, leading to the appeals being allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the application of the bar of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines for raising duty-related demands and rejected the appeal by the Revenue against the modified demand. The decision ultimately favored the appellant by setting aside the impugned order, providing a significant outcome in the dispute over the alleged excess MODVAT Credit on the transferred machines.