Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1297 - CESTAT AHMEDABADRecovery of excess duty - Section 11D(2) of the CEA, 1944 - the appellant had cleared the inputs as such on payment of duty, adopting transaction value, instead of reversing the credit availed on such inputs at the time of its receipt in the factory - Held that: - the Gujarat Hon’ble High Court after considering the relevant provision in similar facts and circumstances in Inductortherm (I) Pvt. Ltd.'s case [2012 (12) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], observed that the excess amount collected from the customers is required to be deposited u/s 11D of the CEA, 1944 - the amount collected from the customers in excess as duty is required to be deposited u/s 11D of CEA,1944 with the department. Whether the demand for the period March 2003 to February 2007 can be enforced when the demand notice was issued on 14.9.2007? - Held that: - in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for recovery of the amount - Pratibha Syntex Ltd. vs. UOI [2013 (3) TMI 480 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] observed that judging the period of limitation from the armchair of a reasonable person under no circumstance more than three years period could be considered as a reasonable period for effecting recovery of the amount. Therefore, recovery could be effected for three years from the date of issue of show cause notice. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for calculation of the demand afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|