9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n [ 2021 (12) TMI 381 - CESTAT BANGALORE ], while deciding the issue in favour of the appellants. It is found that in the instant case also extended period has been invoked while relying on the data which was already available with the Department. It is found that where there are no changes in the material facts of the case and the information available with the Department extended period cannot be invoked again in the subsequent period as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AP [ 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT] . Invocation of extended period requires the evidence regarding the satisfaction of the conditions prescribed therein like suppression of facts etc. with an inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt ORDER Per : P. Anjani Kumar M/s JSW Steel Ltd., the appellants, arraign the impugned order dated 04.11.2016 passed by Commissioner Central Excise, Belgaum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products and are registered under Central Excise as well as Service Tax. On conduct of an audit of the records of the appellant, it appeared to the Department that the appellant have availed cenvat credit on certain services which is not eligible in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice dated 01.01.2015 was issued demanding Rs. 5,09,14,878/- covering the period December 2009 to March 2012 along with interest and penalties. The said show-cause notice was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Department to issue a showcause notice invoking extended period for the subsequent period. The facts of the entire activity of the appellants are in the knowledge of the Department. The Department having missed out certain services in the previous show-cause notice cannot invoke extended period in the subsequent show-cause notice. The show-cause notice covering the period December 2009 to March 2012 was issued on 01.01.2015, beyond the period of limitation and therefore the entire demand is liable to be dropped on limitation alone. He relies on the following cases: a. Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE, A.P. 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C) b. ECE Industries Limited Vs. CCE, Delhi 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C) c. Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submits that all the services on which credit was availed by the appellants are linked and connected to the main activity of manufacture directly or indirectly. He submits that the credit was availed on services utilized in relation to mines, airport, guest houses, township, roads the activities of which are inseparably linked to the main activity of manufacture. He relies on the Final Order of this Bench(supra) and submits that credit cannot be denied. He submits that the Department has displayed a vexatious nature by issuing repeated show-cause notices, on the same issue which was dropped by the Commissioner, invoking extended period time and again. He submits that such an order is not legally sustainable. 7. Mr. M.A. Jithandra, AR ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra). 9. Further we find that learned Commissioner acknowledges the fact that the amount disputed in the instant case also included Rs. 1,00,74,687/- which was already included/covered in the earlier show-cause notices; learned Commissioner therefore confirms the demand to the extent of 3.93 Crores only as against demand of about 5 Crores. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that while acknowledging that the amounts/services are already covered in the previous show-cause notices, learned Commissioner proceeds to confirm the instant demand on limitation. We find that this is not legally permissible. Invocation of extended period requires the evidence regarding the satisfaction of the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Rules it appears that the definition of input service did give vast connotation before or after amendment making the services used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. Only change made after amendment is that certain services are excluded. We find that various High Courts have interpreted to Rules to have a wider connotation rather than the constrictive view taken by Revenue. We find that Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Coca Cola India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune 2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) has held that the manufacturer is entitled to take credit on services used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of the final products up to the place of removal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
