TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26/2016 - Dated:- 23-12-2016 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri K. Parameswaran, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, AR, For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods i.e. Telephone Instruments, parts of Telephone Exchanges and parts of Transmission Equipments falling under Chapter Sub-heading Nos.85171190, 85177090 and 85299090 respectively of the schedule to Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without considering the decided case laws. The learned counsel further submitted that the input service credit was availed in relation to the output service rendered by the appellant which was charged and billed on the customer of the appellant and service tax had also been paid in full on the output services. He further submitted that the major portion of the credit involved of ₹ 2,03,538/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Eight only) pertains to input services used for providing output services and have been duly reflected in the Service Tax Return. He further submitted that the appellant has not suppressed any information from the Department and therefore the charge of suppression and invoking the extended p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued on 03.09.2012 which is beyond one year and the same is barred by limitation. He further submitted that since there was no suppression made by the appellant, therefore the show-cause notice should have been issued within a period of one year whereas in this case it was issued beyond one year. In support of this, he relied upon the following authorities: (i) CCE Vs. Nepa Ltd. - 2013 (298) E.L.T. 225 (ii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2013 (291) E.L.T. 449 (iii) CCE Vs. ITC Ltd. - 2013 (291) E.L.T. 377 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of the parties, I find that the appellant s case is covered by the decision in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
