TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng under Chapter 76 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant has availed the Cenvat credit on various input services received in the course of acquisition of land (for industrial use), wherein the Appellant had to pay appropriate compensation for acquisition of land and also had to resettle the persons who had been displaced by constructing the residential accommodation under the rehabilitation and resettlement policy, for setting up its 'Mahan Aluminium Smelter Plant' at village Bargawan, Distt. Singrauli, M.P. The Appellant acquired a piece of land in a remote village after paying compensation for acquisition of land and after construction of the RR colony for setting up of its Aluminium Smelter Plant as a part of the Corporate Social Responsibility. It was mandatory on the part of the Appellant to construct RR colony failing which the land for setting up of manufacturing plant could not have been procured and hence manufacture of excisable goods would not have possible. 3. The Appellant has availed the Cenvat credit on the following services, the details of which along with the amount of Cenvat credit taken is tabulated as under: S.No. Par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t credit availed by the Appellant along with imposition of penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Show Cause Notice is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation on the ground that the Show Cause Notice has been issued for the period April, 2012 to March, 2016 on 12.4.2017 invoking the larger period of limitation. It is also submitted that the Appellant has taken the Central Excise registration in June 2009 and started filing ER-1 return indicating therein the Cenvat credit availed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant had deliberately suppressed information about availment of Cenvat credit from the Department. In such circumstances, the Department was not justified to invoke the larger period of limitation relying on the decision of Hon'ble MP High Court at Indore in case of CCE, Indore Vs. Zyg Pharma Pvt. Ltd.- 2017 (358) ELT 101 (MP). Learned Advocate also states that the identical issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal, in the Appellant's own case and the Tribunal by its Final Order No. 52928/2018 dated 28.8.2018 held that the issue involved pertained to interpretati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om.). 6. Loan processing charges charged by Banks (Banking and Financial services) Rs. 2,55,58,853/- Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2016 (42) STR 741 (Tri.-Chennai); Aluminium Powder Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2016 (42) STR 776 (Tri.-Chennai); BS & B Safety Systems India Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2017 (52) STR 174 (Tri.-Chennai). 7. Liaison services for forest and railway clearance Rs. 5,880/- Sai Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2017 (51) STR 55 (Tri.-Hyd.); Adani Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad, 2016 (42) STR 1010 (Tri.-Ahmd.); Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.). 7. Learned Authorised Representative, on behalf of Revenue, supported the impugned order and also submitted a written reply dated 3.12.2018, wherein it has been stated that with effect from 1.4.2011, the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, has been amended and by which the word 'setting up" has been deleted by the Government. Due to deletion of word, setting up, the Cenvat credit on input services used for setting up of the factory or the business premises could not have been available to the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invocation of the extended period of limitation is bad and the Show Cause Notice is not maintainable on this ground. 10. Accordingly, we allow the appeal on the issue of limitation. The impugned order is set aside. Appellant is entitled to consequential benefit in accordance with law." Also, we find that the issue has been detected by the audit conducted in the Appellant's factory by the Department. It is admitted fact that the Appellant has taken Central Excise registration in the year 2009 and also started filing ER-1 returns with the Department. In such a circumstances, the extended period for raising demand is not available to the Appellant as held in the case of Zyg Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under : "5. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the . Tribunal and in fact, the Tribunal has upheld the contention of the Department so long as CENVAT credit has been claimed in respect of the impugned goods. The only issue which is bothering the Department is imposition of penalty. 6 The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of. Commissioner v. Dynamic Industries Ltd., report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation . in respect of availment of CENVAT credit and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter back and holding that mandatory equal penalty and extended period of 5 years are not attracted. The High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise. Bangalore v. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2016 (43) S.T.R. 347 (Kar.) in paragraphs 7 and 8 has held as under : 7. It is an admitted fact that the input tax credit was claimed in the return of the assessee from time to time and therefore, it was not a matter for suppression of facts, as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant. 8. Once full facts were disclosed, the normal period of limitation would be one year, whereas the proceedings are initiated after the expiry of a period of one year. Therefore, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in observing that the demand was barred by limitation. 9 In the aforesaid case also, as facts were fully disclosed and there was no suppression, it was held ....