2021 (5) TMI 24 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants relief, finding denial of credit unjustified. Show cause notice time-barred.

M/s Agro Life Sciences Corporation Ltd Versus Commissioner of CE & ST, J&K

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the denial of credit unjustified under Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) and Notification No. ... CENVAT Credit - eligibility to avail credit prior to the Notification No. 02/14 (N.T) dt. 20.01.2014 in terms of Notification No. 01/10-CE dt. 06.02.2010 - invocation of Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no provision in law for the appellant to file invoices before the department in time. In these circumstances, it is found that as the assessee was allowed credit by the adjudicating authority although the revenue has filed appeal against those orders before the Commissioner (Appeals). In these circumstances, when the adjudicating authorities are having a divergent view, the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, therefore, the denial of credit is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Denial of credit to the appellant based on Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) and Notification No. 01/10-CE.2. Time limitation for issuing the show cause notice.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 during July 2012 to January 2014, the appellant was not entitled to credit against inputs procured by units under exemption. The matter was adjudicated, and credit was denied. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued on 24.05.2017 was time-barred, citing precedents supporting their entitlement to credit during the relevant period. The appellant's contention was supported by the Tribunal's decisions in similar cases, emphasizing that the extended limitation period was not applicable.2. The appellant's counsel argued that the show cause notice was time-barred as it was issued beyond the limitation period. The Revenue maintained that the extended limitation period was rightly invoked due to the appellant's failure to produce invoices and verify suppliers' benefit under the notification. The Tribunal, without delving into the case's merits, focused solely on the limitation issue. It noted that there was no legal requirement for the appellant to submit invoices within a specific timeframe. Considering the conflicting views of adjudicating authorities and the Tribunal's previous decisions, the Tribunal ruled that the extended limitation period did not apply in this case. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the denial of credit was time-barred and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the denial of credit based on Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) and Notification No. 01/10-CE was unjustified. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice was time-barred, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant.