Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand raised on reversal of Cenvat credit for removal of capital goods as such was barred by limitation and whether the related interest and penalty could survive.
Analysis: Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 permitted utilization of credit for removal of capital goods as such only to the extent of the credit actually taken. The facts showed that no Cenvat credit had been availed when the capital goods were received, and the reversal/payment made on clearance was treated as irregular use of credit recoverable under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. However, the assessee had disclosed the clearance and duty payment in the monthly return for April 2003, and that disclosure was not disputed. In such circumstances, invocation of the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not justified.
Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and could not be sustained. The consequential interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts are disclosed in statutory returns, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for recovery of duty, and consequential interest and penalty also fall with the demand.