Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 940 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - outward transportation of finished goods from the factory to the buyer’s/customer premises - place of removal - scope of SCN - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Notice proceeds on the basis that the alleged irregular credit of ₹ 32,86,580/- pertains entirely in respect of service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods from the factory to the buyer’s premises. However, the ‘OIA’ has accepted that the Cenvat credit involved on this score is confined to ₹ 3,26,055/- only and that rest of the disputed credit relates to four other issues. The break-up of the disputed credit involved in each of these issues are duly supported by a certificate dated 7 February 2018 from an independent Chartered Accountant and the same has not been disputed in the OIA - Therefore, there is considerable force in the contention of the Appellant that the denial of credit in respect of the other four issues was clearly beyond the scope of the Notice, which lays the foundation for any proceeding and an altogether new case could not have been made out at the appellate stage being violative of the principles of natural justice. Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation from the factory to the buyer’s premises - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is clearly an interpretational one and the Board Circular dated 8 June 2018 also acknowledges the same - The period involved in the present proceeding is also prior to the contrary interpretation rendered in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] denying such credit - credit is allowed. Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- It cannot be said that the department was not aware of the factum of the Appellant taking Cenvat credit of service tax on outward transportation of finished goods to buyer’s premises having served a Notice dated 25 June 2008 for the prior period. Therefore, the extended period is clearly not available to the revenue - Consequently, invocation of the extended period and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is set aside - The demand on this aspect has to be confined to the normal period of limitation alone. Denial of credit on invoices addressed to the Head Office - HELD THAT:- Such invoices were addressed to “Waldies Division” and given that the Appellant had only one factory in the “Waldies Division”, denial of such credit is unjustifiable by following the decision rendered in PAREKH PLAST (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI [2011 (6) TMI 595 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - In so far as the ISD invoices are concerned, such invoices clearly reflected that the credit was being distributed to the Waldies Division and therefore non reflection of the factory address is only a curable procedural defect not warranting denial of the substantive benefit of cenvat credit. Appeal allowed in part.
|