2013 (7) TMI 754 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal decision: Cenvat Credit allowed for outward transportation, disallowed for construction services.

The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI regarding Cenvat Credit on outward transportation and construction services were disposed of. ... Cenvat credit - Outward transportation of the goods - Commissioner disallowed benefit - Held that:- Commissioner relied on decision of ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009 (5) TMI 48 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] and rejected appeal however, this decision is now reversed by Karnataka High Court [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Therefore following this decision - Decided against Revenue. Longer period of limitation - Construction services utilised for the residential colony - Held that:- Whatever is required to be disclosed in the ER-I Return, the appellants have admittedly disclosed the same. As Such no suppression or mis-statement can be alleged to them so as to invoke the longer period of limitation - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Disposal of appeals arising from the same impugned order regarding Cenvat Credit on outward transportation and construction services.2. Acceptance of Larger Bench decision by Revenue.3. Availment of Cenvat Credit for construction services for a residential colony.4. Invocation of longer period of limitation for demand raised in Show Cause Notice.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns the disposal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI arising from the same impugned order regarding the benefit of Cenvat Credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit on outward transportation but disallowed it for construction services for a residential colony, citing the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. The appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee are being addressed in a common order.2. The Revenue's appeal was based on the argument that the Larger Bench decision in the ABB Ltd. case had not been accepted by the Revenue, and an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. However, the Karnataka High Court has since decided the issue and rejected the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal.3. The second appeal pertained to the availment of Cenvat Credit for construction services used in a residential colony. Both parties relied on legal precedents supporting their respective positions. The Tribunal determined that the appeal could be disposed of based on the point of limitation, indicating a limitation on the timeframe for raising demands.4. A demand was raised through a Show Cause Notice dated 30.05.2008 for the period 2006-2007, invoking a longer period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the law was unclear during that period, leading to a bona fide belief by the appellant that they were entitled to avail the credit. The Revenue's objection regarding the absence of invoices from the job worker to verify the credit on construction services was dismissed, as there was no requirement in the ER-I Return to provide such documentation. The Tribunal found no suppression or misstatement by the appellants to warrant invoking the longer period of limitation, thereby setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal on the point of limitation.In conclusion, both appeals, one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee, were disposed of in the manner outlined above by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.