1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Dispute over Cenvat credit for iron & steel items deemed time-barred. Appeal allowed.</h1> The case involved a dispute regarding denial of Cenvat credit for iron and steel items used as supporting structurals. The Tribunal found the demand ... Invokation of extended period of limitation - Cenvat credit - various iron and steel items - used as supporting structurals for fabrication of capital goods - Held that:- demand is clearly barred by limitation. Identical issues stand decided by the Tribunal in number of decisions and it stand held that inasmuch as law was declared subsequently, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant for the purpose of alleging suppression and for invoking the longer period of limitation. As the entire demand is barred by limitation, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant Issues Involved:- Cenvat credit denial for iron and steel items- Bar on demand due to limitationAnalysis:1. Cenvat Credit Denial for Iron and Steel Items:The case involved a demand raised for the period July 2009 through a show cause notice proposing denial of Cenvat credit for various iron and steel items used as supporting structurals. The appellant contended that the items were used for fabrication of capital goods, making them eligible for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been decided in previous cases and held that the demand was barred by limitation. The Tribunal referenced decisions such as Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I, Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, and others to support this finding. The Tribunal emphasized that since the law was declared subsequently, no malafide could be attributed to the appellant for alleged suppression, justifying the invocation of a longer period of limitation.2. Bar on Demand Due to Limitation:Given that the entire demand was found to be time-barred, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal solely on the limited issue of limitation. Consequently, the stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly. The judgment was delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial), and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
