Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (7) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve treated them as three different factories, I consider that none of the decisions cited by learned counsel would help them. Further the appellants themselves have treated them as different factories and availed Cenvat credit separately in respect of the inputs oxygen, in my opinion, it was not correct on the part of the appellant to avail all the credit in respect of oxygen by ML only. Therefore, in my opinion, credit availed by ML in respect of oxygen as input is not admissible. Whether extended period could have been involved in this case - Held that:- when the omission was pointed out, the appellants paid the Cenvat credit and if the department did not initiate any proceeding, the matter would have ended there. In these facts and ci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red in the ratio agreed upon, only in respect of oxygen gas as input, Cenvat credit of duty paid on oxygen was taken by ML only. It is also admitted that credits on other inputs are taken separately. Revenue took a view that this was not proper and credit of duty paid should have been taken in the same proportion of actual use of oxygen by three units and availment of credit by ML on the whole quantum is wrong. ML calculated the amount of Cenvat credit not attributable to the oxygen used by them and paid the entire amount to the department. The amount paid was approximately ₹ 31 lakhs for the period from April 1999 to November 2005. Proceedings were initiated by issue of show-cause notice by Revenue on 29.11.2005 proposing to appropri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d counsel is accepted and appeal filed by Revenue is considered to have filed only in respect of ML. This is in view of the fact that CESTAT rules also require separate appeals to be filed and CESTAT also has not issued notices to others. 4. Learned AR submits that in this case admittedly ML, KFIL and KSL are three separate entities in the eyes of law; they have taken separate registration from the department; they have been paying duty when the goods have been transferred from one unit to another even though their claim is that it is integrated steel plant; they have also taken Cenvat credit in respect of inputs separately; the duty paid by one of the units in respect of the supply made to other units is taken as credit by the other. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evenue is that the appeal has been filed against this decision. He submits that the appeal filed by Revenue against this decision has been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, appeal is not sustainable. 6. I have considered the detailed submissions made by both sides. I am unable to consider the decisions relied upon by learned counsel because in my opinion, none of the decisions could be applied to the facts of this case. In this case, as submitted by learned AR, the appellants themselves have treated the three factories as different; they have taken separate registration from the department; they have been paying duty when the goods have been transferred from one unit to another and they have also taken Cenvat credit in re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d we are concerned with. Even in paragraph 21 it is clearly stated that the estimates were given for future period and not for the past period. Further there is no evidence to support the claim that the appellants had correct quantity of oxygen consumed by the three units and therefore there was deliberate availment of oxygen by ML with an intention to avail excess credit. In any case, when the omission was pointed out, the appellants paid the Cenvat credit and if the department did not initiate any proceeding, the matter would have ended there. In these facts and circumstances, invocation of extended period was not called for. Therefore, I do not find any justification to confirm the demand for the extended period. Once the demand for exte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates