Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... vs Tata Steel Ltd

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. VSK/1&2/MV/2010 dated 15.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai V)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V Appellant

Vs.

Tata Steel Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri N. N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the appellant None for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 18.03.2015 Date of decision : 18.03.2015

O R D E R No:..

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. VSK/1&2/MV/2010 dated 15.1.2010.

2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. With the help of the ld. DR perused the records; I find that the appeal can be disposed even in the absence of any representation from the respondent. Accordingly, I take up the appeal for disposal.

3. It transpires from the appeal papers, the issue is regarding the denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on input services were availed beyond the period of one year for which the invoices were raised. The adjudicating authority has held against the assessee respondent. On appeal, the first appellate authority has set aside the impugned order before me and allowed the appeal by dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.

4. Ld. DR drew my attention in the finding recorded by the appellate authority of Cenvat credit on the invoices beyond the period of one year is not in consonance with law. It is the submission that the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 specifically mandates the availment of Cenvat credit immediately. He would submit that the word immediately has to be interpreted as it should be taken within a reasonable time.

5. In my considered view, grounds of appeal taken by the revenue and as argued by the DR will not carry the case of the revenue any further. It is availed that during the relevant period CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not have any specific restriction as to availment of Cenvat credit. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the service provider has discharged the service tax liability and said services were received by the respondent assessee and utilized in the factory premises. If that be so, I do find the judgment of the Apex Court in CCE vs. Raghuvar India Ltd. 2000 (118) ELT 311 would apply directly wherein it was laid down that there is no time limit specified in the law, the question of denying the Cenvat credit does not arise.

6. In view of the foregoing, I find no merits in the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal is rejected. The impugned order is upheld as correct and legal.

(Pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3