2019 (2) TMI 572 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Extended period of Limitation - no suppression of facts - Held that - The court is of the view that the appeal requires consideration - appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law arising for consideration.

Summary

Issues:
1. Invocation of extended period of limitation for demand of cenvat credit.
2. Denial and recovery of cenvat credit taken and utilized by the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation
The appellant's advocate argued that the show cause notice issued after more than a year from the audit report exceeded the extended period of limitation. The audit report highlighted discrepancies in cenvat credit for March 2007 and April 2007. The appellant contended that since details were available in the ST-3 returns, there was no suppression of facts to justify invoking the extended period. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not address this contention, and the Tribunal noted the absence of service-wise credit details in the ST-3 return. The appellant emphasized that the prescribed Form ST-3 did not require individual service-wise credit details, indicating no suppression. The court admitted the appeal for consideration based on these arguments.

Issue 2: Denial and Recovery of Cenvat Credit
The court identified two substantial questions of law for consideration. Firstly, whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the demand for cenvat credit within the extended period of limitation. Secondly, whether the denial and recovery of cenvat credit amounting to ?7,41,541/- utilized by the appellant during March 2007 to May 2007, along with interest and penalty, was justified. These questions will be crucial in determining the legality of the denial and recovery of the cenvat credit by the appellant, as argued by the advocate during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment revolves around the invocation of the extended period of limitation for demanding cenvat credit and the subsequent denial and recovery of the credit utilized by the appellant. The arguments presented by the appellant's advocate regarding the absence of suppression of facts and the Tribunal's decision form the crux of the legal issues addressed in this case.