2016 (3) TMI 1136 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellant on Cenvat Benefit & Penalty - Time Limitation Key

M/s Agarwal Aluminium Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I

M/s Agarwal Aluminium Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I - TMI Issues:1. Denial of cenvat benefit and confirmation of penalty amount.2. Validity of taking cenvat credit based on a photocopy of the invoice.3. Barred by limitation of time - SCN issued beyond one year.Analysis:Issue 1: Denial of cenvat benefit and confirmation of penalty amountThe Tribunal observed that the matter was remanded back to the Original Authority for fresh fact-finding in the previous round of litigation. The Original Authority dropped the Show Cause Proceedings, stating that the duty paid character of the goods and their utilization in the factory were not in dispute. However, the Revenue appealed, leading to the denial of cenvat benefit and confirmation of the penalty amount by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). This denial of benefit and penalty confirmation formed the subject matter of the current dispute before the Tribunal.Issue 2: Validity of taking cenvat credit based on a photocopy of the invoiceThe Appellant argued that since duty had been paid on the disputed invoice and the goods were received in the factory for the intended purpose, allegations of suppression or misstatement could not be made beyond the one-year limitation period for issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN). The Appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support this argument. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that taking cenvat credit based on a photocopy of the invoice was not permissible under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Respondent cited a Tribunal decision to support this stance.Issue 3: Barred by limitation of time - SCN issued beyond one yearThe Tribunal examined the compliance with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and found that the duty paid character was not in dispute, and there was no evidence of fraud or suppression. As the SCN was issued more than one year after the cenvat credit was taken, the Tribunal held it to be barred by limitation of time. Distinguishing the Respondent's cited case, the Tribunal concluded that the proceedings for recovery of cenvat demand and penalty imposition were not proper due to the time limitation, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellant and deeming the impugned order unsustainable.