Tribunal allows appeal on CENVAT Credit admissibility pre-2009 amendment, penalty set aside

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on items like Cement, Angles, Channels used in foundation work and support structures for machinery before the 2009 amendment. The demand for the period before the amendment was considered time-barred, and the appeal was allowed. As for the period after the amendment, since the Appellant had already reversed the CENVAT Credit, the penalty imposed was set aside.

---

---

Issues involved:
Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on items like Cement, Angles, Channels used in foundation work and support structures for machinery.
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit before the amendment:
The appeal was filed regarding the issue of taking CENVAT Credit on items like Cement, Angles, Channels used in foundation work and support structures for machinery. The Appellant argued that before the amendment of CENVAT Credit Rules in 2009, the definition of Inputs did not restrict credit on these items. The Appellant cited a case where conflicting views existed on the admissibility of such credit, and argued that the extended period of 5 years cannot be invoked for demanding credit reversal prior to the amendment in 2009. The Appellant also referenced a High Court case supporting the admissibility of such credit on similar items.
2. Arguments on admissibility post-amendment:
The Revenue argued that credit taken after the 2009 amendment to CENVAT Credit Rules would not be admissible as the provisions were clear. In response, the Appellant stated that all CENVAT Credit for the period after the amendment had been reversed, and thus, no penalty should be imposed.
3. Judgment on admissibility:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal observed that conflicting views on the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the items in question had been resolved by a Larger Bench decision. It was held that there was no intention to evade taxes or take wrong credit when conflicting views existed. Therefore, the demand for the period before the 2009 amendment was considered time-barred, and the Appellant's appeal regarding the CENVAT Credit for that period was allowed.
4. Decision on post-amendment demand:
Regarding the demand for the period after the 2009 amendment, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant had already reversed the CENVAT Credit along with interest. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed on the Appellant was set aside.

---