IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh – Appellant
Versus
North Eastern Cables and Conductors Private Limited – Respondent
C. Ex. App. No. 6 of 2020
Decided On : 19-08-2024
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This central excise appeal is filed by the appellant/Revenue being aggrieved with the final order No. 76932/2019 dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, CESTAT), East Regional Bench, Kolkata in Service Tax Appeal No. 76119/2014 (arising out of Order-in- Original No. 01/ST/ADJ/Commr./ Dib/14-15 dated 23.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed with consequential relief and the impugned demand was set aside.
3. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 15.09.2021 passed by this Court and the following substantial question of law was framed for adjudication:
4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. North Eastern Cables and Conductors Private Limited (hereinafter referred to be as “the respondent Company”), having its Service Tax Registration under Jorhat Division, had provided services under the category of “Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services” to various organizations like Electricity Board etc. under the specific contract. Apart from that, the respondent Company had also supplied materials like RCC Poles, conductors, angles etc. under separate and independent contract.
5. According to the appellant, the supply of materials is not covered under the purview of Service Tax Act but the Erection, Commissioning or Installation part is liable to Service Tax. It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent Company had violated Rule 3 and Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Rules of 2004”) by availing and utilizing the CENVAT Credit of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.1,30,84,835.00 only on inputs used for rendering exempted service as defined under Rule 2(e) of the Rules, 2004.
6. It is not in dispute that the periodic returns ST-3 had been submitted by the respondent Company wherein the details regarding total credit, credit utilized as well as credit reversed had been mentioned.
7. On the basis of an audit objection, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh had issued a demand-cum-show-cause notice (SCN) to the respondent Company on 04.11.2013 and asked the respondent Company to show cause as to why, an amount of Rs.1,30,84,835/- wrongly utilized by it should not be demanded and recovered along with the interest. It was also mentioned as to why interest to the tune of Rs.1,19,16,571/- be not demanded and recovered from it and why penalty should not be imposed upon it.
The relevant portion of the demand-cum-show cause notice is reproduced hereunder:
Aditya College of Competitive Exam Vs. CCE; Visakhapatnam
Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut
Assn. of Leasing & Financial Service Companies Vs. Union of India
CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments
Central Excise Act and reported in CCE vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. 2010 INSC 775 : (2010) 13 SCC 117
Commissioner of Central Excise
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs. Citibank N.A. 2021 INSC 857 : (2023) 8 SCC 483
Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise
Escorts Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad
M/s. Modipon Fibre Company, Modinagar, U.P. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut
Uniworth Textiles Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur
The demand for CENVAT Credit was barred by limitation as the respondent disclosed all relevant details, and no evidence of willful misstatement or suppression was presented.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, which allows for the extended period of limitation, can only be applied in cases of deliberate suppre....
Extended limitation period for tax demands requires evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; mere non-payment is insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.