2019 (10) TMI 46 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input credit - suppression or contumacious conduct or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The SCN is issued pursuant to audit and issue of audit report FAR No. 196/C.Ex./2010-11 and further FAR No. 324/CX/2010-11 relating to the period April, 2009 to May, 2011. Admittedly, the transactions are properly backed by invoices and recorded in the ordinary course of business. Admittedly, the statutory returns have been regularly filed. There is no case of misdeclaration in the returns. Thus, in the absence of conditions like suppression of facts or contumacious conduct, extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of input credit on services used by the appellant.
2. Eligibility of input credit on travel expenses related to business activities.
3. Application of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Disallowance of credit for services related to manufacturing activity.
5. Extended period of limitation for invoking show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was engaged in manufacturing and availed input credit amounting to ?27,42,661/- for the period April 2009 to March 2011. The Department observed ineligible credit during an audit.
2. The appellant responded to the audit objections, stating that services like Tour and Travel by Chartered plane for a Director were essential for business activities. However, the Department contended that these services did not have a nexus with manufacturing and were wrongly availed, leading to a Show Cause Notice proposing denial of credit.
3. Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was amended in May 2011, resulting in the reversal of credit on Regular flight travel. The Department requested details on input service credit availed on various expenses related to travel, which were submitted by the appellant.
4. The Department alleged that the appellant wrongly availed credit on travel services like Chartered Plane, regular flight, and hired taxi, which were not integral to manufacturing. The appellant refuted these claims, stating the services were essential for business functioning.
5. The matter went through various adjudications, with the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case for further verification. The subsequent Order-in-Original disallowed credit to the appellant, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice was issued based on audit reports, and in the absence of suppression of facts or contumacious conduct, the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues surrounding the denial of input credit on specific services used by the appellant, the eligibility of such credits in relation to business activities, the application of Cenvat Credit Rules, the disallowance of credit for services related to manufacturing, and the invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice. The Tribunal's decision hinged on the lack of suppression of facts or contumacious conduct, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order.