Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1114 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Insurance Services (Vehicle Insurance & Life Insurance) - Civil Work - period from April 2010 to October 2012 - history of amendments made in Rule 2 (l) of CCR - extended period of limitation - penalty - Requirement of notice as per section 11 (A) (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- While adjudicating authority has in his order referred to the definition as it existed during the period prior to 01.04.2011, Commissioner (Appeal) has referred to the amended definition as it existed subsequently for upholding the order of the original authority. Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as it was first incorporated in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, by the Notification No 24/2004-(NT) dated 17.09.2004 - Admittedly, in the present case, the concern is with CENVAT Credit taken by the appellant during the period to the amendments made with effect from 01.04.2011. The reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeal) on the exclusion clause as inserted in the definition of input services, in Rule 2 (l), is totally uncalled for and unjustified. Both show cause notice and Order-in-Original seek to deny the CENVAT credit in respect of insurance services for the reason that these services are not used in Appellant in or in relation to manufacture of the finished goods. It is also observed that no ground for denial of CENVAT Credit in respect of construction services has been indicated either in the show cause notice or in the Order-in-Original. It is only in the order of the appellate authority that the ground for denial of CENVAT credit on the construction services is put forth, by stating that it falls within the exclusion clause - it is arriving at a loss to make out as to what quantum of CENVAT Credit sought to be denied in respect of life insurance services and what is quantum in respect of construction services. There are no finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order in respect of submission made by the appellant, if Cenvat Credit has been allowed in respect of the same services to the other assessee’s there is no justifiable reason for denying the same to the present appellant - The show cause notice should not have been issued to the appellant. It is observed that after the lapse of a considerable time after the audit, revenue proceeded to issue this show cause notice invoking suppression of facts. What is the reason for invoking suppression or other ingredients required for invoking an extended period in this case - no ground existed for invoking the extended period of limitation in the present case. Since the extended period could not have been invoked, the show cause notice itself could not have been issued and the matter should have been settled on the basis of the amount reversed by the appellant. Penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Impugned order has held in favour of the penalty imposed. As there are no merits in the invocation of the extended period of limitation as per Section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the penalty imposed also set aside. Requirement of notice as per section 11 (A) (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- In absence of any concrete reasons to invoke extended period of limitation there is no reason why this subsection should have not been invoked by the revenue for not issuing any show cause notice to the appellant. It is quite evident that impugned order cannot be sustained on any of the grounds - Appeal allowed.
|