Neo Metaliks Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata delivered a ruling in the case of Neo Metaliks Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, addressing five appeals concerning the denial of CENVAT credit. The key issue in these appeals was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked multiple times for the same matter. The tribunal ruled that once the extended limitation has been used for an issue, subsequent notices for the same issue cannot rely on it again. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise (2006), where it was held that repeated invocation of extended limitation on the same issue is not permissible.
The tribunal also examined the denial of CENVAT credit based on procedural grounds, such as the lack of Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration for the head office and invoices not being issued in the company’s name. It ruled that since the receipt and utilization of services were not in dispute, credit could not be denied merely on procedural irregularities. The ruling emphasized that substantive benefits cannot be denied due to technical lapses when there is no dispute over the legitimacy of credit availed.
