FINAL ORDER NO. 50906/2026

JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd¹1. the appellant has filed this appeal to assail the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the appeal that was filed by the appellant to assail the order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner confirming the demand for recovery of the wrongly availed CENVAT credit with interest and penalty, has been dismissed.

2. The appellant, through its Regional Distribution Centre located at Jaipur, was operating as a ‘deemed manufacturer’ under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944²2. the Central Excise Act. At this Regional Distribution Centre, all activities from procurement of materials to sales of goods to the ultimate customers through the channel partners of the appellant took place. The appellant undertook expansion of the existing facilities at the Regional Distribution Centre and received various input services as well as other services and availed CENVAT credit of taxes paid on such services in terms of the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004³3. 2004 Credit Rules. The appellant claimed that it had been regularly filing the ER-1 returns in which the availment of such credits was stated in the returns.

3. However, during the audit of the records of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant had availed inadmissible CENVAT credit on various services used in relation to ‘setting up’ of a unit.

4. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 20.03.2020 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand and recover inadmissible CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 82,55,265/- along with interest and penalty for the period from April 2015 to June 2017 by invoking the extended period of limitation contemplated under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice and not only contended that it had correctly availed the CENVAT credit, but also submitted that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Additional Commissioner, however, by order dated 26.11.2020 confirmed the demand proposed in the show cause notice by holding that the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which appeal was dismissed on 09.02.2022. The Commissioner (Appeals) not only held that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT credit but also held that the extended period of limitation had been correctly invoked.

6. It is against this order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that this appeal has been filed.

7. Ms. Sukriti Das, learned counsel for the appellant contended that not only had the Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error in holding that the appellant had wrongly availed the CENVAT credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) also committed an error in holding that the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. To support this contention that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked in the show cause notice, learned counsel placed the relevant paragraphs of the show cause notice and the reply filed by the appellant as also the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned counsel also placed reliance upon two decisions of the Tribunal rendered in M/s GD Goenka Private Limited vs The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South⁴4. Service Tax Appeal No. 51787 of 2022 decided on 21.08.2023 and National Engineering Industries vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise⁵5. Excise Appeal No. 51129 of 2022 decided on 19.08.2025.

8. Shri S.K. Ray, learned authorised representative appearing for the department, however, submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as not only had the appellant wrongly availed CENVAT credit, but in the facts and circumstances of the case the extended period of limitatio