Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 534 - AT - Central ExciseConversion of a portion of factory to 100% EOU - Extended period of limitation - The respondent cleared capital goods, on which the cenvat credit was availed to the said 100% EOU without payment of duty or without reversal of Cenvat Credit. - Notification No. 1/95 dt. 4.1.1995 -Held that: - it is observed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent on the ground that 100% EOU is eligible for the cenvat credit if all the cenvat credit is reversed by the respondent. I find that this finding of the Ld. Commissioner is also based on the judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel in the case of Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., [2013 (10) TMI 145 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The Ld. Commissioner also held that the demand is time barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond one year of the removal of the goods. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the goods were cleared under CT-3 which was issued by the department. In the present case, the 100% EOU is located within the same premises and falling under the same jurisdiction of the Central Excise, Pune. Therefore the authority issuing the CT-3 certificate must be aware about the 100% EOU as well as the respondent factory. In view of this fact there appears to be no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, therefore, the show cause notice issued beyond the stipulation period is time barred. Moreover, the judgment in the case of Behr India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-II [2016 (6) TMI 827 - CESTAT MUMBAI] having the similar facts and circumstances, applying to the fact of the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|