Tribunal rules demand for denial of credit on TMT Rebar Coils & cement time-barred

The Tribunal held that the demand for denial of credit on TMT Rebar Coils, TMT Rebar, and cement was time-barred as the appellant had disclosed necessary details in their returns and there was no evidence of suppression to evade duty payment. The extended period was deemed inapplicable, leading to the demand being unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the original order, with the judgment delivered on May 9, 2016.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of credit on TMT Rebar Coils, TMT Rebar, and cement; Time-barred demand; Admissibility of credit on the subject items as capital goods post-July 2009.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing straw boards and paper products, faced denial of credit on TMT Rebar Coils, TMT Rebar, and cement, treated as capital goods. A show-cause notice was issued in January 2013, confirming a demand of Rs.2,60,937 along with penalties and interest. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred, as they had disclosed credit availed in periodical returns and believed it to be admissible pre-July 2009. The appellant also cited a similar case where credit was allowed on the same items by another authority.

The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the original order, stating that the appellant should have verified the admissibility of credit before availing it. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of suppression by the appellant to evade duty payment. It was noted that the show-cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, and the appellant had disclosed necessary details in their returns. The Tribunal held that the extended period was not applicable, rendering the demand unsustainable due to being time-barred.

The respondent argued that credit on the subject items was not admissible as capital goods post-July 2009. However, the Tribunal's analysis focused on the time-barred nature of the demand, emphasizing that the appellant had not suppressed any facts and had duly disclosed information in their returns. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs. The judgment was pronounced on May 9, 2016.

---