Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 411 - CESTAT KOLKATACENVAT Credit - credit taken based on Supplementary Invoice raised by the Dankuni unit - extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the Appellant’s Dankuni Unit was issued several Show Cause Notices during the period July 1998 to June 2001. As per the Table contained at Page 12 of the OIO passed in respect of that unit, 16 such Show Cause Notices were issued. On going through this Table, it is seen that in the case of all the 16 Show Cause Notices, they were issued for the normal period only without invoking the provisions of extended period without reference to suppression, mis-statement, etc. Therefore, when the Show Cause Notices have been issued in the normal course for the normal period and there has been no suppression clause brought in, the provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of CCR 2004, would not be applicable. Therefore, the confirmed demand is required to be set aside on this account alone. Further, it has been held in catena of decisions, it has been held that only when any demand stands confirmed on account of fraud, suppression or willful misstatement, etc. only after having attained finality, the Cenvat Credit will not be eligible when such duty element is passed on by way of supplementary invoices. In the present case, against the proceedings initiated against the Dankuni Plant, the confirmed demands (in fact only for the normal period) are being contested by the Appellant at the Tribunal level. Therefore, the confirmed demand at the lower level cannot be said to have attained finality. Even on this account, the allegations contained in the present proceedings are not found to be legally sustainable. Hence the provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable. Appeal allowed.
|