TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Successful appeal based on limitation grounds; no fraud found; remand ordered for further consideration.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant. Despite modifications in the ... Invocation of extended period of limitation - in spite of repeated proceedings before adjudication and Appellate Authorities, there is no finding to said aspect - Recovery of CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- While considering the issue in similar case M/S. NEPA LTD. VERSUS CCE, INDORE [2013 (11) TMI 776 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Tribunal held that the assessee being a Public Sector Undertaking, there can be no mala fide intention to avail irregular and non-available CENVAT credit and non-payment of duty with intent to evade payment of duty and held that lower period of limitation and imposition of penalty are not imposable. Once there is no averment either in the SCN or impugned orders regarding the availment of benefits by suppression of fact or fraud, invoking extended period of limitation is not proper. The appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the case. Issues:1. Invocation of extended period of limitation under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.2. Disallowance and recovery of CENVAT credit.3. Recovery of interest on ineligible credit.4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:Issue 1: Invocation of extended period of limitation under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004The appellant, an oil refinery, faced an audit objection regarding the wrong availment of credit on input services. Despite reversing a portion of the credit, a Show Cause Notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant contended that without allegations of fraud or suppression of facts, the extended limitation period should not apply. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation.Issue 2: Disallowance and recovery of CENVAT creditThe Adjudicating Authority initially disallowed and ordered recovery of a specific amount of CENVAT credit, along with interest and penalty. However, in subsequent orders, a portion of the credit was allowed, and the proceedings related to interest and penalty were dropped based on the absence of fraud or suppression of facts.Issue 3: Recovery of interest on ineligible creditThe Adjudicating Authority imposed interest on the ineligible credit availed by the appellant. However, in later proceedings, this aspect was dropped, indicating a shift in the decision due to the absence of fraudulent intent or suppression of facts.Issue 4: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004Initially, a penalty was imposed on the appellant. Still, in subsequent orders, the penalty proceedings were dropped, aligning with the finding that there was no suppression of facts or fraud to warrant the imposition of penalties.The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to the Original Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the need to consider all options open. Despite the subsequent orders modifying the disallowance and recovery of credit, the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation remained central. The Tribunal, following legal precedents and considering the absence of fraudulent intent, allowed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without delving into the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed based on the limitation issue, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
