9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 121 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - credit availed on the strength of bills of entry where CVD has been paid by using DEPB scrips issued prior to 01.09.2004 - extended period of limitation - Held that - The issue has been decided in the case of KAMANI OIL INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-II 2017 (12) TMI 161 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that the larger period cannot be invoked in case of bonafide belief on issue involved as it was disputed - the appellant would be entitled to benefit of limitation on this issue. CENVAT Credit - clearance of capital goods on which credit has been taken as waste and scrap for the period up to October 2008 - Held that - It is seen that prior to 01.04.2012, there was no specific provision requiring reversal of Cenvat credit of capital goods, if not removed as such. Consequently, the demand on this count cannot be sustained - reliance also placed in the case of PARIKH PACKAGING PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. AHMEDABAD-I 2019 (2) TMI 1417 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - demand do not sustain. CENVAT Credit - Goods Transport Agency services availed for movement of goods beyond the place of removal - Held that - The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Vasavadatta Cement Limited 2018 (3) TMI 993 - SUPREME COURT has clarified that the credit would be admissible for the period up to March 2008 in view of the definition of input service at the material time - The appellant are not contesting the demand after March 2008. Demand for the said period is therefore confirmed. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of the demand.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on 15 different items. 2. Admissibility of Cenvat credit of CVD paid using DEPB scripts. 3. Clearance of capital goods as waste and scrap. 4. Cenvat credit of Goods Transport Agency services beyond the place of removal. Analysis: Issue 1 - Denial of Cenvat credit on 15 different items: The appellant contested only three out of the 15 issues raised in the lower authorities. The disputes mainly revolved around the denial of Cenvat credit on specific grounds. Issue 2 - Admissibility of Cenvat credit of CVD paid using DEPB scripts: The appellant argued that the denial of Cenvat credit on the strength of bills of entry where CVD was paid using DEPB scrips issued before 01.09.2004 was not justified. They relied on precedents like the Essar Steel Limited case and the Kamani Oil Industries case to support their claim for the benefit of limitation. Issue 3 - Clearance of capital goods as waste and scrap: The second issue raised was related to the clearance of capital goods as waste and scrap. The appellant pointed out that prior to the rule amendment in 2012, there was no requirement to reverse Cenvat credit in such cases. They cited the Parikh Packaging Pvt. Limited case to support their argument against the demand for reversal. Issue 4 - Cenvat credit of Goods Transport Agency services beyond the place of removal: Regarding the Cenvat credit for Goods Transport Agency services beyond the place of removal, the appellant acknowledged the need to reverse the credit for the period after March 2008. They referred to the Vasavadatta Cement Limited case to support their stance on the admissibility of credit up to March 2008. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's contentions on the issues related to CVD paid using DEPB scripts and the clearance of waste and scrap of capital goods up to October 2008. The demand on these counts was set aside based on legal precedents and the absence of specific provisions. However, the Tribunal confirmed the demand for Cenvat credit in respect of Goods Transport Agency services beyond the place of removal after March 2008. The matter was remanded for re-quantification of the demand by the Adjudicating Authority.
|
