9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 413 - HC - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - capital goods - tower material - pre-fabricated building / shelter - time limitation - Held that - The Tribunal found that the submission of the Revenue even if noted and on this point, that does not carry its case any further. Until the Tribunal stepped in and conclusively held that no cenvat credit can be claimed as the goods are capital goods, the matter was at large. Penalty - Held that - Because the issue was of interpretation and arguable, the penalties cannot be sustained. They also cannot be sustained because the demand has not been upheld in full. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding confiscation of capital goods on which cenvat credit was availed. Analysis: The Revenue challenged the order of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the Adjudicating Authorities should have confiscated the goods on which cenvat credit was improperly availed. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not discuss the issue of confiscation or refer to the relevant rule. Despite the Tribunal confirming that cenvat credit was ineligible, it did not sustain the penalties or the demand fully, setting aside the penalties and partially the demand. The Tribunal also found that due to an issue of interpretation, the Revenue's plea for confiscation was not accepted. Upon reviewing the order, the Court noted that the Tribunal conclusively held that no cenvat credit could be claimed on the capital goods in question. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of limitation and penalties, finding that penalties could not be sustained due to the demand not being upheld in full. The Court considered the overall circumstances and the mixed finding by the Tribunal, determining that the plea for confiscation could not be accepted following the conclusions on merits. The Court held that the Tribunal's view was plausible and not perverse, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal as the questions proposed by the Revenue were not substantial questions of law. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Appeal without any order as to costs, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the confiscation of capital goods on which cenvat credit was improperly availed.
|
