2021 (5) TMI 28 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, credit denial unjustified.

Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt Ltd, Hawco Petrofer LLP, Aman Paper Mills and Komal Paper Mills Versus Commissioner of CE & ST, J&K

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the denial of credit was unjustified and time-barred. The denial of credit based on ... CENVAT Credit - denial on the premise as per Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) dt. 20.01.2014 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no provision in law for the appellants to file invoices before the department in time. In these circumstances, 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, it is found that 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 notices have been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, therefore, the denial of credit is barred by limitation. The demand against the appellants is barred by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Denial of credit to the appellants based on Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) dt. 20.01.2014.2. Applicability of extended period of limitation in issuing show cause notices.3. Verification of invoices and supplier benefits under the notification in question.Analysis:Issue 1: The appellants contested the denial of credit based on Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) dt. 20.01.2014, which restricted credit availability before the said notification amendment. The Revenue argued that the appellants were not entitled to credit during specific periods due to exemption under Notification No. 01/10-CE dt. 06.02.2010. The appellants procured inputs during these periods and availed duty credit. The matter was adjudicated, and credit was denied. The Tribunal found that the denial of credit was unjustified as the appellants were allowed credit by the adjudicating authority, leading to a divergent view within the authorities. The Tribunal held that the denial of credit was time-barred and set aside the impugned order based on precedents supporting the appellants' entitlement to credit.Issue 2: The appellants raised the issue of the extended period of limitation in issuing show cause notices dated 20.06.2017, 29.11.2017, and 19.4.2017 for different periods. The appellants argued that the notices were time-barred, citing precedents where the extended period was not invoked. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, emphasizing that there was no provision requiring the appellants to submit invoices within a specific timeframe. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case, especially since there were conflicting views within the adjudicating authorities. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to support its finding that the demand against the appellants was indeed barred by limitation.Issue 3: The Revenue contended that the invoices were not produced by the appellants and questioned whether the suppliers had availed benefits under the relevant notification. The Revenue argued that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked due to these circumstances. However, the Tribunal found that the absence of invoice submission did not warrant the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that the denial of credit based on this ground was unjustified, especially when the Revenue had filed appeals against the orders allowing credit. The Tribunal's decision highlighted that the denial of credit was not justified by the verification issue raised by the Revenue, as the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the denial of credit was barred by limitation and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.