2025-VIL-771-CESTAT-ALH-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - CENVAT credit, Capital goods, Security services, extended period of limitation – Admissibility of CENVAT credit on the purchase of Structural Platform, Flat rolled products of Iron/ Steel and Hot rolled Alloy Steel Plates - Whether the CENVAT Credit taken by the appellant in respect of Structural platforms, flat rolled products of iron/ steel and hot rolled alloy steel plates is admissible - HELD - The appellant had availed CENVAT credit on these items considering them as "capital goods" and not "inputs". The definition of "capital goods" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not cover these items. The appellant also failed to establish that these items were used for manufacture of capital goods within the factory. Thus, the CENVAT credit on these items is not admissible. The extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked by the department as the appellant had suppressed the material facts with intent to wrongly avail CENVAT credit in contravention of the provisions of the Rules - The demands in respect of CENVAT credit on Structural platforms, flat rolled products of iron/ steel and hot rolled alloy steel plates, and security services are upheld. The demand in respect of utilization of CENVAT credit of EC and SHE Cess is dropped as time-barred. The demands for interest and penalty in respect of the confirmed demands are also upheld – The appeal is partly allowed - Whether the CENVAT Credit taken by the appellant in respect of security services provided in the residential colony would be admissible - HELD - The definition of "input service" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not cover the security services provided in the residential colony, as these services do not have any direct or indirect relation to the manufacture of the final product. The decisions of the Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court have held that such security services provided in the residential colony are not eligible for CENVAT credit. The amendment made in 2011 to the definition of "input service" further clarified that services meant for personal consumption of employees are excluded from the definition. Therefore, the CENVAT credit on the security services is not admissible, and the extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked by the department - Whether appellant could have utilized the CENVAT Credit of Education Cess and SHE Cess for payment of Central Excise duty during the month of March 2015 - HELD - The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Cellular Operators Association of India holds that the credit of EC and SHE Cess could be utilized only against EC and SHE Cess, and could not be cross-utilized against the excise duty or service tax. The provisions introduced in 2015 allowing such cross-utilization were prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, the appellant's utilization of the CENVAT credit of EC and SHE Cess for payment of Central Excise duty during March 2015 is not permissible – However, the demand made in respect of utilization the CENVAT Credit of Ed Cess and SHE Cess for payment of Central Excise duty during the month of March 2015 is dropped as barred by limitation.

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page