CESTAT rules in favor of appellants, sets aside demand for denial of Cenvat credit on iron and steel items.Invokation of extended period of limitation - Cenvat credit - duty paid on various iron and steel items which has been used as structurals - Held that:- identical issues stand decided by the Tribunal in number of decisions and it stand held that inasmuch as law was declared subsequently, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant for the purpose of alleging suppression and for invoking the longer period of limitation. As the entire demand is barred by limitation, the impugned order is set as... ... ... Issues:
1. Barred demand by limitation for denial of Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used as structurals.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, addressed the issue of a demand raised for the period February 2007 to December 2007. The demand was based on the denial of Cenvat credit on duty paid for various iron and steel items alleged to have been used as structurals, making the credit unavailable as per the law established in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been previously decided, holding that since the law was declared subsequently, no malafide intent could be attributed to the appellant for alleging suppression and invoking a longer period of limitation. Reference was made to several decisions by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, including Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I, Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, and others, to support this stance.

The Tribunal found that since the entire demand was barred by limitation, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the timeline of legal precedents and the absence of malafide intent in cases involving the limitation period for demands related to Cenvat credit on specific items like iron and steel used as structurals. Invokation of extended period of limitation - Cenvat credit - duty paid on various iron and steel items which has been used as structurals - Held that:- identical issues stand decided by the Tribunal in number of decisions and it stand held that inasmuch as law was declared subsequently, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant for the purpose of alleging suppression and for invoking the longer period of limitation. As the entire demand is barred by limitation, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief M/s. KM Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Allahabad
Central Excise
2014 (11) TMI 1084 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2017 (350) E.L.T. 273 (Tri. - Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI - AT
Dated:- 21-11-2014
Excise Appeal No. 52101 of 2014 - ORDER NO . FO/ 54636 /2014-Ex(Br)
Central Excise
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Ms Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, we proceed to decide the appeal itself. Admittedly the demand is barred by limitation which issue stand decided by various precedent decisions. 2. The demand stand raised for the period February, 2007 to December 2007 by way of issuance of show cause notice in March, 2012, by denying the Cenvat credit of duty paid on various iron and steel items on the allegations and finding that the same has been used as structurals in which case the credit would not be available in terms of law declared by the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. [2010 ELT (253) 440(LB)] . 3. Identical issues stand decided by the Tribunal in number of decisions and it stand held that inasmuch as law was declared subsequently, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant for the purpose of alleging suppression and for invoking the longer period of limitation. Some reference can be made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of 1) Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)] 2) Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC)] 3) M/s. High Tech Equipments & Spares Pvt. Ltd. Final Order No. A/58186/2013-SM[BR] dated 05.11.2013 4) CCE, Raipur v. Baldev Alloys Pvt. Ltd [2012-TIOL-388-CESTAT-DEL] 5) CCE, Raipur v. Orion Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.[2010 (259) ELT 84 (Tri.)] 6) CCE, Raipur v. Rajaram Maize Products [2010 (258) ELT 539 (Tri.)] 4. Inasmuch as the entire demand is barred by limitation, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. 5. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders