Denial of CENVAT credit for steel used in unipole ads upheld; penalty set aside.

The appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on structural steel used for unipole fabrication was denied. The Tribunal ruled against the appellant, stating that the steel was not eligible for credit as it was used for displaying advertisements on unipoles. The invocation of the extended period for denial of credit was deemed questionable. The order was upheld within the one-year limitation period, with interest, but demands beyond that period were set aside. No penalty was imposed due to the previous Tribunal decision on the issue. The penalty was therefore set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Whether the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty paid on structural steel used for fabrication of unipoles.

Analysis:
The appeal in question is against an order-in-original dated 21/08/2012. The central issue is whether the appellant can claim CENVAT credit on structural steel used for unipole fabrication. The appellant argues that the steel is used for displaying advertisements on unipoles, falling under Advertising Agency Services, making them eligible for credit. However, the Revenue contends that unipoles are immovable property, thus disallowing the credit. Both lower authorities upheld the denial of credit, citing the extended period due to alleged suppression of facts. The show-cause notice from 21.11.2008 invoked the extended period for wrong CENVAT credit availment during January 2007 to July 2008.

Upon review, it was noted that the issue of CENVAT credit on structural steel has been addressed in various judgments, including a recent one by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that the appellant cannot claim credit for steel used in unipole fabrication for advertisements. The argument against the extended period was supported, as the issue was debatable, making the invocation of extended period questionable. The judgment referenced a case involving Bharti Airtel Ltd., highlighting the criteria for goods to qualify as capital goods for CENVAT credit eligibility.

The impugned order was upheld within the one-year limitation period from the show-cause notice date, with interest. However, demands beyond the limitation period were set aside. Since the issue was litigated and decided by the Tribunal previously, no penalty was imposed on the appellant. Therefore, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---