Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1013 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT credit of service tax paid - denial on the ground that construction of primary school as also ST/SC colony has no nexus with the appellant's activities of manufacture of petroleum products - extended period of limitation invoked - Held that:- In the present case, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products. The construction of the first floor of a school and the construction of colony for the SC/ST cannot be said to be having any nexus, whatsoever, with the manufacturing activity of the appellant. Even if the said construction activities, which are in the nature of community developments, were not taken by the appellants, the appellant's activity of manufacture and sale of excisable goods would have continued. Similarly the said construction activity has no connection with the appellant's business of manufacture and sale of their final product. The definition of 'input services' cannot be stretched to such an extent that it is becomes practically illogical. If such an extended meaning is given to the said definition so as to include all the activities of the appellants, whether or not relatable to his business, the definition would lose its meaning, intended to be given by the legislation. Find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order of the lower authorities holding the said activities as non-cenvatable services. Find favour in the appellant's contention of the first demand being barred by limitation. Admittedly the entire credit was availed by the appellant by reflecting the same in the statutory records as also in the monthly returns filed by them. Otherwise also, find that the appellant is a public sector undertaking and there can be no mala fide intent on their part to avail the irregular and non-available credit. There being no positive evidence on the part of the assessee to show that there was any suppression or mis-statement with any mala fide intent, hold the first demand to be barred by limitation. For the same reasons, the penalty imposed upon the appellant is also set aside along with setting aside the demand raised and confirmed in respect of show-cause notice dated 4.3.2010. As regards the demands relatable to the second show-cause notice dated 29.3.2010, the entire period falls within the limitation. The same is accordingly confirmed. However, no penalty is imposable on account of absence of any mala fide.
|