TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Grants Cenvat Credit & Relief, Invalidates Show Cause Notice</h1> <h3>Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax, Jaipur</h3> Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax, Jaipur - TMI Issues involved:1. Denial of cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and short payment of duty due to a difference in assessable value in ER-1 Return vs. sales register.2. Validity of show cause notice issued invoking the extended period of limitation.Analysis:Issue 1: Denial of cenvat credit and short payment of duty:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Motor Vehicles/Tractors, availed Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A show cause notice was issued proposing to demand Cenvat credit on paints/chemicals, capital goods, and duty due to assessable value differences. The appellant contested the demand, arguing that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked without alleging fraud or suppression. The appellant explained the usage of disputed items and denied any duty shortfall. The Assistant Commissioner passed an ex parte order confirming the demand, which was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the credit on certain capital goods but confirmed the demand on other issues.Issue 2: Validity of show cause notice:The appellant challenged the show cause notice's validity, arguing that the extended period of limitation was invoked without meeting essential requirements. The appellant's detailed reply highlighted factual inaccuracies and vagueness in the notice. The order-in-original was passed ex parte during the Covid pandemic, confirming the demand without proper adjudication. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld part of the demand, leading to the present appeal.The appellate tribunal, after hearing both parties, examined the issues in detail. It found that the Floor Top Hardener used by the appellant was an eligible input under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Additionally, it deemed capital goods like Induction Lamps and Lift Table essential for manufacturing taxable goods. The tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation for the assessable value difference, considering the minor accounting discrepancies due to the MRP basis of operation. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant consequential benefits.In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing cenvat credit on eligible items, acknowledging the importance of essential capital goods, and dismissing the demand for duty based on minor assessable value differences. The issue of limitation was left open, and the appellant was granted relief in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
