Ramakrishna Electricals Winding Works Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad)
The CESTAT Hyderabad considered whether the appellant, engaged in rewinding electrical motors, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST after remand and whether the adjudicating authority could deny the exemption on grounds beyond the scope of the remand order. The dispute arose from a Show Cause Notice covering April 2005 to March 2010, invoking the extended limitation period and proposing penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In an earlier round, the Tribunal had already held that the appellant was entitled to exclude the value of goods and materials deemed to have been sold while rendering repair and maintenance services, subject only to production of proof regarding such value, and remanded the matter for that limited purpose. During de novo proceedings, the appellant produced a Cost Accountant’s certificate and contended that Cenvat credit of ₹2,18,669 taken for a later period had been reversed with interest, amounting to non-availment of credit. The Tribunal held that reversal of Cenvat credit satisfied the condition of non-availment and that the adjudicating authority had exceeded the scope of the remand by re-examining eligibility under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. It further held that claiming the benefit of an exemption notification could not be treated as suppression of facts for invoking the extended limitation period. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed by way of remand only for the limited purpose of recalculating the demand for the normal period.
