Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 932 - CESTAT KOLKATACENVAT Credit - credit availed by the Appellant on the strength of invoices issued by its Head Office as ISD - whether loading services availed by the Appellant is eligible for credit - denial of credit on the ground that the subject input service for loading is not eligible for credit under the Credit Rules - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The credit has been denied merely on the ground that goods against which loading services have been availed have not been received by the Appellant in their factory. It is also found that the authorities have taken an erroneous view that in order to avail credit of service tax paid on loading services, the goods in respect of which such loading services have been availed, should have also been physically received in the factory of the Appellant which is not correct inasmuch as there is no such condition prescribed in the Credit Rules. The case would have been different had the credit of central excise duty been availed by the Appellant without bringing the goods in the factory which is not the case herein. Moreover, it is admitted in the facts of the case, that the goods in respect of which loading services have been availed have been duly exported outside the country. Even otherwise, in that case also, the appellant would have been eligible for claiming refund of input service under Rule 5 of the Credit Rules subject to compliance with the conditions prescribed therein. In the instant case, instead of availing refund of input service, the appellant has availed the credit under the Credit Rules for payment of output excise duty on excisable goods cleared form the factory - there are no reason to deny the credit. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- SCN has been issued in August 2016 by invoking extended period of limitation. Apart from the general aversion, there is no evidence to show that credit has been wrongly availed by way of fraud or suppression. Hence, the impugned demand is also barred by limitation and hence, not sustainable on that count also. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|