TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows appeal for delayed Cenvat credit, rejecting penalty imposition on steel and iron manufacturers.</h1> <h3>STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR</h3> STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 321 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Denial of Cenvat credit and recovery along with interest for delayed availing of credit.2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:1. The appellants, steel and iron manufacturers with captive mines, received inputs during April 2002 to December 2006 but did not take Cenvat credit at that time. Subsequently, they availed credit from July 2007 to March 2007 after a Supreme Court judgment. The department issued a notice seeking denial of credit, recovery, and penalty. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant challenged this, arguing that there is no time limit for availing credit after input receipt. The Board's circular clarified that immediate availing is not mandatory. Previous tribunal cases supported delayed credit availing. The department contended that immediate availing is necessary, citing a tribunal judgment. The appellant justified the delayed availing post-Supreme Court's favorable judgment.2. The Tribunal analyzed the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing that immediate availing is not mandatory as the rules use 'may' instead of 'shall.' The Board's circular and previous tribunal decisions supported this interpretation. The delay in availing credit was justified due to adverse judgments until the Supreme Court's decision favored the appellant. The Tribunal found the department's argument based on a single bench tribunal judgment flawed. Considering the lack of a specified time limit and the circumstances surrounding the delayed availing of credit, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.This detailed analysis covers the issues of denial of Cenvat credit, recovery, penalty imposition, and the interpretation of rules and circulars, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order and allow the appeal.
TaxTMI 