Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Pushpit Steels Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Guntur on 29 March, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench SMB Court I Appeal No.E/22912/2014 (Arising out of Order-in-original No. passed by ) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Pushpit Steels Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CCE, Guntur ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri M. Masilamani, Consultant for the appellant.
Shri V.K. Shastri, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:29/03/2016 Date of decision:29/03/2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appellant is aggrieved by the disallowance of CENVAT credit which had been transferred to the appellant on purchase of the factory.
2. The appellant purchased land & building along with plant and machinery of Induction Division from M/s. Shri Venkateshwara Sponge & Power (P) Ltd. (SVSPPL) as per sale deed dated 18/05/2011. The unutilized CENVAT credit was also transferred to the account of the appellant. A show-cause notice dated 01/06/2012 was issued to the appellant for the period 2007-08 invoking extended period of limitation alleging irregular availment of CENVAT credit of Rs.6,72,720/- on capital goods/fabricated structures and spare parts and accessories. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.6,72,720/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the credit availed on spare parts and accessories, but sustained the demand of credit availed on fabricated structures. Hence this appeal.
3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned consultant Shri M. Masilamani vehemently contented that the demand is time barred. He submitted that though the plea of limitation was raised before the lower authorities, it was not considered at all. The appellant had purchased the property only in the year 2011. The period involved is 2007-08. During this period appellant had no knowledge about the CENVAT credit availed and that unutilized credit was transferred to the CENVAT account of appellant as per terms and conditions of sale deed. That during the relevant period credit was availed by the previous owner and the demand notice issued invoking extended period alleging suppression of facts against the appellant is totally unsustainable. That therefore the demand is time barred.
4. Per contra, the learned AR Shri V.K. Shastri reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that credit is not admissible on fabricated structures and that the demand raised invoking extended period is right and proper.
5. I have heard the rival submissions. It is borne out clearly from records that the appellant became the owner of the factory only in the year 2011. The period in dispute is 2007-08. The contention of the appellant is that he had no knowledge about the credit availed during the disputed period and that the unutilized CENVAT credit was transferred as per the terms and conditions stated in sale deed. I find force in these submissions. The extended period is invokable only on establishing suppression of facts or willful mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty. During the relevant period, the appellant was not the owner of the factory. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination can it be said that the appellant suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. In these circumstances, I find that the demand is time barred and therefore not sustainable. The appellant has established a case in his favour on the ground of limitation. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in court on conclusion of the hearing) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Raja.
4