2026 (7) TMI 1349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocation of the extended period of limitation, and the subsequent order dated 02.05.2018 rejecting the application for rectification of mistake by learned CESTAT. 2. Brief Factual Background first. The appellant, M/s Shree Siddhi Vinayak Induction Pvt. Ltd., manufactures M.S. Billets falling under Chapter Heading No. 72061090 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By a Show Cause Notice dated 20.08.2010, the Department demanded CENVAT credit of Rs. 7,73,243/- with interest and penalty, invoking the extended period of limitation for April 2008 to January 2009. The dispute concerned the admissibility of CENVAT credit on iron and steel items and cement used in the supporting structure of an overhead crane. 2.1 The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended period of limitation. The answer depends upon what was actually pressed before the Tribunal, for a Tribunal cannot be faulted for not deciding an issue that was expressly given up. 4. At this stage, paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Tribunal's order dated 09.05.2016 are decisive and are reproduced: "3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not contesting the demand of cenvat credit along with interest confirmed by the authorities below. He submits that the prayer of the appellant is for setting aside the penalty imposed by the authorities below. To support such stand, the Ld. AR submits that there were divergent views by different judicial forums regarding entitlement of cenvat credit on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hallenge to the extended period of limitation necessarily fell away. Limitation is not an abstract question; it goes to the sustainability of the demand. A party that concedes the demand on merits cannot simultaneously keep alive a plea whose only purpose is to defeat that very demand. The concession thus subsumed the limitation plea. 5.3 Third, the Tribunal granted the only relief that remained live before it i.e. it quashed the penalty on the finding that the issue was highly debatable during the relevant period, which preceded both the amendment of Rule 2(k) and the Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. v. CCE, 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. LB), and that no mala fides could be attributed to the appellant. 6. In these peculiar ....