Good Year India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, considered an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 07/KKK/COMMR/ADJN/FBD-I/2015-16 dated 16.06.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Faridabad-I. The impugned order denied CENVAT credit of ₹53,99,123 under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of C&F Agent services, rent of office/godown after sale, and annual maintenance contracts (AMC) of computers and air conditioners. Interest was also demanded under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11AA of the Act, and a penalty of ₹7,00,000 was imposed under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules.
The appellant manufactures tyres and, during the period 2013-2014, availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and various input services. The Department alleged that CENVAT credit had been wrongly availed on C&F Agent services amounting to ₹33,35,634, renting of office/godown services amounting to ₹20,27,615, and AMC of computers and air conditioners amounting to ₹35,874. A show cause notice dated 05.05.2014 was issued, and the Commissioner confirmed the proposed demand along with interest and penalty.
The appellant contended that the issue had already been decided in its favour by the Tribunal for the previous period and by the Departmental Authority for the subsequent period in its own cases. It relied on Final Order No. 60572-60573/2024 dated 04.10.2024 covering the period from December 2005 to May 2011 and Order-in-Original No. 18-19/16-17/Commr./YG/FBD-I/2016-17 dated 27.07.2016 covering the subsequent period 2014-15 and 2015-16. The appellant submitted that no appeals had been filed by the Department against those orders, as evidenced by the RTI reply furnished by the CPIO regarding the order dated 27.07.2016, and therefore those decisions had attained finality. It further argued that the Department could not adopt a contrary stand on the same issue for the same assessee. The appellant also submitted that the disputed services were used in relation to the manufacture of the final products and, therefore, CENVAT credit had been correctly availed. It further submitted that once the demand itself was unsustainable, interest and penalty could not survive.
