Appeal allowed due to misconceived notice & unjustified limitation period. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was misconceived as the transactions predated the introduction of the Exclusion Clause. The extended period ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal allowed due to misconceived notice & unjustified limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was misconceived as the transactions predated the introduction of the Exclusion Clause. The extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the order-in-appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the show cause notice is barred by limitation. 2. Whether the appellant rightly took cenvat credit on the installation of pre-fabricated structures during September 2009 to December 2010.
Analysis: 1. The appellant, a manufacturer of P.P. Bags, engaged M/s. Supertech (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the installation of pre-engineered steel buildings for modernization. The appellant claimed cenvat credit on the invoices of M/s. Supertech for the supply and installation of pre-fabricated structures. The Revenue, during an audit, found the credit claimed was impermissible under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, due to an Exclusion Clause introduced from 1.7.2012. The show cause notice alleged that the credit was not available, leading to the invocation of an extended period of limitation. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the disallowance of the credit along with penalties.
2. The appellant contended that as the transactions and invoices were before 1.7.2012 when the Exclusion Clause was introduced, it did not apply. The appellant had duly recorded the transactions in their books of accounts and cenvat credit register, arguing no concealment was involved, thus no basis for invoking the extended period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on both merit and limitation grounds.
3. The Tribunal held that since the transactions occurred before the introduction of the Exclusion Clause on 1.7.2012, the Clause did not apply. Consequently, the show cause notice was deemed misconceived. Additionally, the Tribunal found no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
