TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l issue following the decision of the Larger Bench which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. Thus, the appellant acted on bonafide belief and the demand of duty alongwith interest for the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The Learned Advocate submits that the entire demand is barred by limitation. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/772/2007 - Order No. A/11369 / 2015 - Dated:- 8-9-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri P V Sheth, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative Per : Mr.P.K. Das, After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile the show cause notice has been issued on 28-4-2004. The fact of clearance of obsolete Cenvat credit availed inputs as waste on payment of duty on transaction value during August and September, 2002 came to the notice of the Department during audit sometime in January, 2003 and on being asked by the Department, the appellant submitted all the required information under their letter dated 17-6-2003.The extended period has been invoked by the department on the ground that the appellant were aware of different rules and procedure of availment of Cenvat credit but still chose to take the credit in spite of Board s instructions and thus it can be said that they have availed the credit knowing fully well that they were not entitled for the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessee s liability was only restoring the Cenvat credit originally taken. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the appellant have paid the amount strictly going by the wordings of Rule 3(4) during the period of dispute, according to which on removal of cenvated inputs as such, an amount equal to duty on the transaction value was payable. With regard to this issue, there were conflicting decisions and for this reason, this issue had been referred to Larger Bench till it was settled by the Larger Bench in the case of Eicher Tractors v. Commissioner reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 131 (Tri. - LB). Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of the Tribunal as a result of which extended period of limitation could not be invoked. In holding so, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Continental Foundation Joint Venture vs CCE, Chandigarh I - 2007.26.ELT.177 (SC). 4. In the present case, we find that the show cause notice was issued for the extended period of limitation.There are various Board Circulars on this issue, which was decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case M/s Eicher Tractors (supra), as distinguished in the decision of M/s National Engg India Ltd Vs CCE Jaipur I - 2010.258.ELT.97 (Tri. Del). Recently, the Tribunal in the case of M/s Panasonic AVC Networks India Co Ltd (supra) passed order on the identical issue follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
