Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1132 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - capital goods - CR, SS Sheet, HR, SS Coil, old and used Aluminum structure parts, Aluminum coil etc. falling under chapter 72 & 76 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Though the appellant is prima facie entitled for the cenvat credit in the light of various judgments cited by the learned counsel on merit, however, the matter can be disposed of on limitation. The appellant have availed cenvat credit recorded in their records and declared regularly in their ER-1 returns. Moreover, on the legal issue of availability of cenvat credit on the said goods there were various judgments of division bench of this Tribunal, Larger Bench of this Tribunal and also various High Courts, therefore, the issue was purely interpretation of cenvat credit rules. For this reason also no mala fide intention can be attributed to the appellant. In the present case for the period of demand i.e. 19.10.2006 to 14.08.2007 the show cause notice was issued much beyond the normal period of one year i.e. on 25.06.2010. The appellant also cited various judgments on the identical facts and the issue involved in the present case that the demand is time bar. On the issue of invocation of longer period of demand the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S CONTINENTAL FOUNDATION JOINT VENTURE SHOLDING, NATHPA HP VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] has held that there cannot be suppression or mis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11A. Mis-statement of fact must be wilful. The demand is clearly time bar. Hence, not sustainable on limitation itself - Appeal allowed.
|