Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1331 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - common inputs services that were used/utilized in or in relation to their trading activity - time limitation - Held that: - Department was well aware of the trading activity carried on by the appellant which is clear from the letter dated 03.03.2010 which is on record and the audit note dated 12.01.2010 - When all the facts were in the knowledge of the Department then the meaning of suppression and invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable in view of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai Vs. Essel Propack Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 1084 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that When all this material was made available to the department and the classification list have been approved and RT-12 returns assessed down the years, it is difficult to find any justification for upholding the allegation of misstatement or suppression of facts. During the relevant period there was no provision with regard to reversal of credit on common input services relating to trading activity. But vide amendment dated 01.03.2011 in Rule 2(e) providing the trading as an exempted service and a formula was incorporated in Rule 6 for reversal of credit - Therefore, the issue relates to interpretation of the said provision where it is applicable prospectively or retrospectively - longer period of limitation invoked by the Department is not legally sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|