2023 (9) TMI 14 - HC - Central Excise

Court orders reevaluation of denied Cenvat Credit, grants petitioners hearing opportunity

IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company Limited and others Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurgaon-1 and others

The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent to reevaluate the documents and records submitted by the petitioners regarding the ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - adjustment/deduction the excise duty paid by the petitioners through utilizing Cenvat Credit at the time of investigation - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The only ground taken by the respondents in the written statment that the benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be given for adjustment as per Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (annexure P-3) on the ground that this issue has to be decided by the adjudicating authority, is not correct and the same is rejected. As per above said judgments, this benefit cannot be denied on the ground that the period of limitation of one year has gone by, as under the benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (annexure P-3), any amount deposited during enquiry has to be adjusted. Hence, the petition filed by the present petitioners deserves to be allowed. The impugned SVLDRS-2 (Annexure P-12), SVLDRS-3 (Annexure P-16) issued by respondent No.2 and letter dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure P-2) are set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:Petition seeking quashing of SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-3, denial of Cenvat Credit on the ground of time limit, adjustment of excise duty paid through Cenvat Credit during investigation, application of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and the admissibility of Cenvat Credit under the scheme.The petitioners, a company engaged in the production of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC), sought relief from the denial of Cenvat Credit on the ground of time limit, specifically related to the investigation conducted by Central Excise officers and subsequent show cause notice issued for evasion of Central Excise Duty.The petitioners submitted Cenvatable invoices for verification, with a portion of the credit disallowed on the technical ground that it was taken beyond the one-year registration limit, leading to the dispute over the admissibility of Cenvat Credit under the scheme.Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the petitioners made applications for immunity from penalty, which led to the issuance of SVLDRS-2 and subsequent rejection through SVLDRS-3, based on the contention that the duty paid through Cenvat Credit was not eligible for deduction under the scheme.The respondents argued that the deposit made through Cenvat Credit does not qualify for adjustment under the scheme, citing provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules and notifications specifying time limits for availing such credit, leading to a dispute over the interpretation and application of the rules in the present case.The petitioners relied on previous judgments emphasizing the deduction of amounts paid during investigation or audit while issuing statements of amounts payable, rejecting the contention that the benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be given for adjustment under the scheme, and highlighting the need for a fresh order considering all documents and records submitted by the petitioners.The Court, after considering the arguments and precedents cited, set aside the impugned orders, directing the respondent to reevaluate the documents and records submitted by the petitioners, including proof of payment of Cenvat Credit, and to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before the decision is made.