Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax, Raipur vs. Vandana Global Limited
Held
The High Court held that the CESTAT was correct in refusing to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the respondent had not deliberately suppressed material facts to evade duty or avail ineligible credit. The Court found that the CESTAT's decision on this point was based on its earlier decisions. Regarding CENVAT credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas, the High Court relied on its own previous judgments in Tax Case No.18/2018 (The Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Vs. M/s Aggrawal Sponge Pvt. Ltd) and Tax Case No.59/2011 (M/s Vandana Global Limited Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs), which held that structural steel, oxygen gas, and welding electrodes are 'inputs' eligible for CENVAT credit. Therefore, the CESTAT had rightly allowed the CENVAT credit on these items to the respondent. The appeal was dismissed.
Facts
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Raipur (Appellant/Revenue) against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had refused to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for structural items. Additionally, the CESTAT had allowed CENVAT credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas. The Revenue's argument before the CESTAT, as noted by the High Court, primarily focused on the issue of allowing CENVAT credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas, and not on the availability of the extended period of limitation. The CESTAT had remanded the matter for de novo adjudication for the period within the normal limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand for duty for structural items invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was sustainable. The Revenue contended that the extended period was available, while the Respondent argued that there was no suppression of material facts to evade duty or avail ineligible credit. 2. Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on welding electrodes and oxygen gas. The Revenue argued against allowing this credit, whereas the Respondent contended that these items qualify as 'inputs' and are eligible for CENVAT credit. The High Court noted that the Revenue's argument before the CESTAT was limited to this issue.
Sections Cited
Section 11-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 21 of 2017 Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus Vandana Global Limited Siltara Industrial Growth Centre, Siltara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra & Hon'ble Shri
Ram Prasanna Sharma
, JJ Order On Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, J 16/04/2018 :
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') refusing to invoke extended period of limitation under Section 11- A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') in respect of structural items and further allowing cenvat credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas.
2
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we have found that the respondent has not suppressed the material fact deliberately to evade duty or to avail ineligible credit, therefore, demand for extended period was rightly held to be not sustainable. While recording the finding, the CESTAT has referred to its earlier d
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.