Appeal partially allowed: Remand for demand computation, penalties set aside, CENVAT credit granted. Interest and penalties waived.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by remanding the case for proper computation of demand for the normal period. Penalties were set aside as the extended period could not be invoked for subsequent periods. The denial of CENVAT credit for Repair and Maintenance services was overturned, and interest and penalties were waived due to the appellants' proof of non-utilization of wrongly availed credit. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Denial of CENVAT credit under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act
- Imposition of interest under Section 11AB and penalties under Section 11AC
- Extended period of limitation for demand of CENVAT credit
- Denial of CENVAT credit on Repair and Maintenance services

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT credit under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act
The appellants contested the denial of CENVAT credit on Forwarding and Cargo Handling services and Repair and Maintenance of ETP. They argued that the services were used directly or indirectly in the manufacturing process, making them eligible input services. The Commissioner (A) confirmed the demand only for irregular CENVAT credit in respect of Forwarding and Cargo Handling services and Repair and Maintenance of ETP. The appellants claimed that the services were used for export purposes, and the place of removal was the port of export, not the customers' premises. The Tribunal held that the place of removal for export goods was indeed the port of export, not the customers' premises, as claimed by the appellants. Therefore, the denial of CENVAT credit on these services was upheld.

Issue 2: Extended period of limitation for demand of CENVAT credit
In one of the appeals, the extended period of limitation was invoked for demanding CENVAT credit availed during a specific period. The appellant argued that they had not concealed any facts from the department with an intent to evade payment of duty, and they regularly filed returns disclosing credit availed. The Tribunal agreed that in such circumstances, where the demand was based on audit objections and the appellant had been transparent in their filings, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Therefore, the demand for the specific period was held to be barred by limitation.

Issue 3: Denial of CENVAT credit on Repair and Maintenance services
Regarding the denial of CENVAT credit on Repair and Maintenance of ETP, the appellant explained that they had paid service tax on a reverse charge basis, even though the invoices did not reflect the service tax amount. The Tribunal accepted this explanation and set aside the denial of CENVAT credit for Repair and Maintenance services.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by remanding the case for proper computation of demand for the normal period. The penalties imposed were set aside, as the extended period could not be invoked for subsequent periods. The denial of CENVAT credit for Repair and Maintenance services was overturned, and interest and penalties were waived due to the appellants' proof of non-utilization of wrongly availed credit. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---