Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 690 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input service distribution - services used in common for manufacturing, as well as for trading activities - recovery sought under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant had taken the credit as assigned to them by head office, registered as ‘input service distributor’, in accordance with rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Several conditions are enumerated in the said rule and it is the contention on behalf of the appellant that none of these restrict distribution in the manner presumed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. As the entirety of the dispute pertains to credit availed between April 2006 and March 2009 which predates the deeming of ‘trading’ as an exempted activity by notification no. 13/2011-CE dated 31.03.2011 and it is claimed by the appellant that denial of credit on this score has been held to be inappropriate in a catena of decisions of the Tribunal, in the first instance, it is to be ascertained if the decision in ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.C., JAIPUR [2016 (12) TMI 223 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], relied upon by Learned Authorised Representative, serves to discard the claim. It is seen that the primary issue agitated before the Tribunal in that dispute was the jurisdictional competence of central excise authorities having control of the recipient of credit to raise demand for recovery under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the order impugned therein was upheld by discarding that claim without examining applicability of the retrospectivity issue decided in earlier orders of the Tribunal; this is not surprising as such a plea had not been made in that proceeding. From the records, it is seen that there is no allegation of the conditions prescribed having been breached in any manner in determination of distribution of credit by ‘input service distributor’ which the head office was. The availment of the entirety of credit, so accrued, at the Peenya facility is not inconsistent with the law. The sole counter of Learned Authorised Representative to this ruling is a portion of the decision of the Tribunal in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt Ltd which is nothing more than recording of the findings in the order impugned therein with no further evaluation of that finding. Indeed, only the jurisdiction issue was before the Tribunal in that dispute. Therefore, there are no reason to discard the submission of Learned Counsel that assignable credit would have to be proportionately restricted to the extent of ‘trading’ turnover only with effect from 1.04.2011. The impugned order lacks authority of law and, consequently, set aside - appeal allowed.
|