M/S. Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur

[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. Commissioner/BIL/CE/012014 dated 27.11.2014 passed by CCE (Appeals-I) Chhattisgarh]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

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

M/s. Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Sh. Udit Jain (Advocate) for the Appellant

Mr. Vaibhav Bhatnagar(DR) appeared for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 27.10.2015

Final Order No. 54186/2015_

Per S K Mohanty:

Demand of interest and imposition of penalty by invoking the extended period of limitation for delayed reversal of cenvat credit is the subject matter of present dispute.

2. Sh. Udit Jain, the Ld Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the cenvat credit taken inadvertently since, was reversed upon detection of mistake by the Department, SCN issued by invoking the extended period of limitation, seeking recovery of the interest amount and for imposition of penalty is barred by limitation of time. He further submits that there is no involvement of any suppression, fraud, collusion in irregular availemnt of cenvat credit. The Ld. Advocate relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, madras vs T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) ELT A117-SC to state that confirmation of demand is not justified.

3. Per contra, Sh. G. R. Singh the Ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

5. It is an admitted fact that irregularly availed cenvat credit and subsequently reversal thereof is not attributable to any fraud, collusion, misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty. In such an eventuality, the Department was required to issue the SCN within a period of one year from the relevant date i.e. reversal of cenvat credit. Since the SCN in the present case was issued on 03.10.2013, involving the period from April 2006 to November 2008, I am of the considered view that the same is barred by limitation of time and confirmation of interest and penalty by the authorities below are not justified. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of T.V.S. Whirlpool (supra) have held that period of limitation is not only applicable for the claim of the Principal amount, but has also applicable to the claim of interest thereon.

6. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

1 | Page

E/50418/2015-Ex[SM]