TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) whether the Appellant is liable to pay Central excise duty as confirmed by the Adjudication authority, and; (iii) whether the Appellant who had availed and utilized CENVAT credit during the course of investigation was an ineligible credit and confirmation of demand is tenable. 3. The brief facts are the Appellant M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., is engaged in warehousing and selling of 'Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)' falling under Chapter 27 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tarif Act, 1985. The Appellant has set up a warehousing facility at Bala Village in 2002 for import of 'propane' and 'butane' through New Mangalore Port. They entered into an 'Infrastructure Sharing and Safe Keeping Agreement' with other oil companies like M/s. BPCL, M/s. IOCL, etc., for providing the service of storage and warehousing storage of the imported goods for which the Appellant received renumeration. The Appellant duly discharged applicable service tax on the consideration received during the relevant period. In 2012, appellant installed static mixer in the port and 'propane' and 'butane' earlier transported via separate pipelines were sent to the process....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actured by them through the pipelines to Mangalore LPG Import Facility ('MLIF') and cleared the same to M/s. IOCL for non-domestic consumers, without payment of applicable Central Excise duties. Thus, considering the activities as manufacturing, confirmed the Central Excise duty. In addition to that since appellant have utilized CENVAT credit during the course of investigation, which is inadmissible, hence ordered recovery of the same with interest and penalty was also imposed under various provisions of law. Further, penalty was also imposed on others. Aggrieved by said order, present 4(four) appeals were filed before the Tribunal. 4. When the appeals came up for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that appellant duly discharged applicable service tax on the consideration received up to 2012. In 2012, the Appellant installed a static mixer at the port for blending 'propane' and 'butane' into LPG, which was then transferred to the Mangalore LPG Import Facility (MLIF). All clearances of blended LPG for domestic consumption were affected at 'nil' duty under Sl. No. 81 of Notification No. 12/2012CE. In July 2014, due to urgent demand for non-domestic LPG, the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, as well as other specified duty-paying documents. The said Rule, under clause (c), specifically recognizes a Bill of Entry as one of the valid documents for availing CENVAT credit, falling within the ambit of "Documents and Accounts" contemplated therein. The relevant portion of the said Rule is extracted below: "9. (1) The CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of any of the following documents, namely:- (a) an invoice issued by- (i) [a manufacturer or a service provider for clearance of]- (I) inputs or capital goods from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer, (II) inputs or capital goods as such; (ii) an importer, (iii) an importer from his depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said importer if the said depot or the premises, as the case may be, is registered in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002; (iv) a first s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04, prescribing the documents on the strength of which credit may be validly availed. The Appellant places reliance on Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II-[2012 (282) E.L.T. 453 (Tri.-Del.)], holding that CENVAT credit cannot be denied for imported goods once duty is paid and goods are received, even if technical deficiencies exist in the Bill of Entry. Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, governing domestic goods, is inapplicable to imports, and credit is available even to a borrower of goods. Thus, the period of limitation computed is unsustainable. The bill of entry filed by the importer under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 becomes evidence of duty only upon assessment under Section 47. It is not equivalent to an invoice or duty paying document issued by a manufacturer under Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules. The Appellant further places reliance on Banner Pharma Caps Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi [2009 (246) E.L.T. 364 (Tri. Ahmd.)], wherein the Tribunal held that inputs received within six months of import, even with a delayed endorsed Bill of Entry; do not justify denial of credit. Limitation provisions aim to prevent misuse, not to penalize genuine duty-paid receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rly filed in relation thereto. In these circumstances, when the Department was at all times fully aware of the Appellant's operations, invocation of the extended period of limitation is wholly unwarranted. It is further submitted that, in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the normal period of limitation for issuance of a Show Cause Notice is one year from the relevant date, and in the present case the Respondent has mechanically and erroneously resorted to the extended period, rendering the impugned proceedings unsustainable in law. The Appellant submits that there was neither suppression of facts nor any willful misstatement on its part so as to warrant invocation of the extended period of limitation. All activities were undertaken in full transparency and within the knowledge of the Department. The Bills of Entry for the relevant imports were duly filed by both M/s. IOCL and M/s. HPCL, respectively which were within the cognizance of the Customs authorities. In this regard the Appellant places reliance on the case of Hyva India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where in it was held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked where when the department has knowledge of....