Intex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
CESTAT Chandigarh considered whether the appellants could avail CENVAT credit on inputs purchased from manufacturers availing Notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 during the period 01.05.2012 to 19.01.2014.
The appellants were availing area-based Notification No. 01/2010-CE and procured inputs from vendors in Jammu & Kashmir for manufacturing computer speakers. Revenue disputed their CENVAT credit on the ground that Notification No. 01/2010 was not covered by Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules during the relevant period. A show-cause notice dated 01.06.2017 demanding Rs.1,75,82,647/- was issued and the demand, along with interest and equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was confirmed by order dated 06.12.2018 by invoking the extended limitation period.
The appellants submitted that Rule 3 governed CENVAT credit entitlement and contained no restriction where suppliers had availed Notification No. 01/2010. They relied on several Tribunal decisions and contended that the Department was aware of their practice because refunds/self-credits had been allowed through speaking orders after verification. Therefore, they argued that the extended limitation period could not be invoked.
Revenue contended that credit was inadmissible before 19.01.2014 because Notification No. 01/2010 was included under Rule 12 only from that date. It relied on the non-obstante clause in Rule 12 and argued that the appellants had not disclosed the relevant credit in ER-I returns. Revenue also contended that the extended period, interest and penalty were justified.
