2021 (3) TMI 777 - AT - Central Excise

Show cause notice time-barred, credit denial appeal allowed with limitation relief

The Tribunal found the show cause notice time-barred, leading to the denial of credit being barred by limitation. The appellant's appeal was allowed with ... Cenvat credit - extended period of limitation - time barred show cause notice - divergent view of adjudicating authorities - barred by limitationExtended period of limitation - time barred show cause notice - divergent view of adjudicating authorities - barred by limitation - Whether the show cause notice issued invoking the extended period of limitation was maintainable in respect of credit availed for the period February 2010 to January 2014 - HELD THAT: - The appellant confined its challenge to limitation. There is no statutory requirement that the appellant must have filed invoices with the department within the relevant period. The adjudicating authority had allowed cenvat credit to the assessee, while the Revenue had filed appeals against those orders, indicating divergent views among authorities. In such circumstances, and relying on this Tribunal's earlier decisions in Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Dharampal Satyapal Limited, the Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was not warranted. Consequently, the show cause notice issued by invoking the extended period was time barred and the demand premised thereon could not be sustained. [Paras 6, 7]The show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation is time barred and the demand is barred by limitation; the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation: the show cause notice issued for the period February 2010 to January 2014 by invoking the extended period of limitation is held time barred, the demand is barred by limitation and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief, if any. Issues:1. Denial of credit to the appellant based on Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) and Notification No. 01/10-CE.2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for the show cause notice issued.3. Verification of invoices and the supplier's benefit under the notification in question.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the denial of credit due to Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) and Notification No. 01/10-CE. The appellant, located in Jammu & Kashmir, availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 01/10-CE dated 06.02.2010. The Revenue contended that the appellant was not entitled to credit during February 2010 to January 2014. After Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) dated 20.01.2014, the appellant could avail credit. The appellant's credit was denied, leading to the appeal.2. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued on 30.05.2017, invoking the extended period of limitation, was time-barred. Citing precedents like Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. CCE, Noida and Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jammu, the appellant claimed entitlement to cenvat credit during the impugned period. The appellant contested the invocation of the extended period of limitation based on these grounds.3. The Authorized Representative reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, highlighting that the appellant did not produce invoices or verify if suppliers benefited from the notification. The department invoked the extended period of limitation for this reason. The Tribunal, without delving into the case's merits, focused on the limitation issue. It noted that the appellant was allowed credit by the adjudicating authority, despite revenue appeals. Considering divergent views and precedents, the Tribunal held that the extended limitation period was inapplicable. Citing the cases of Saraswati Agro Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Dharampal Satyapal Limited, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to limitation.In conclusion, the Tribunal found the show cause notice time-barred, leading to the denial of credit being barred by limitation. The appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of limitation in such cases.