9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2015 (1) TMI 1082 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that in such a scenario, the demand would be barred by limitation. - Stay granted. - E/Stay/22399/2014, E/22153/2014-DB - - - Dated:- 7-1-2015 - Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) And B S V Murthy, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr G Shivadass, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Mohd Yusuf, Addl Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa: Central Excise duty of ₹ 8.52 crores (approx.) stands confirmed against the appellant for the period November 2008 to March 2013 by raising a show-cause notice dt. 21/11/2013. 2. As per the facts on record, appellant is receiving duty paid chassis from M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., and are fabricating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants had actually paid an amount of ₹ 2 crores more than the required duty to be paid. Such a plea of the appellant stand rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that adjustments cannot be made inasmuch as the same would virtually amount to refund of excess paid duty, in which case the provisions of unjust enrichment would apply. As regards limitation, the recorded that the Revenue was seeking details from the appellant for the last 4 years, which they have were avoiding and as such delay in issuance of the show-cause notice is on account of the assessee himself. 5. Learned advocate has drawn our attention to various decisions of the Tribunal, some of which stand confirmed by the High Court. By a majority decision in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find favour with the appellant's contention on the point of limitation. The law was declared against them in the case of Audi Automobiles referred above and was not clear during the relevant period. The said decision was issued in the year 2010. The Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2014 (310) ELT 153 (Tri. Mumbai)] has held that in such a scenario, the demand would be barred by limitation. 7. At this stage, learned advocate fairly agrees that the demand within the limitation would be around ₹ 1.48 crores. Further after taking into account the excess duty paid by them in respect of some of the clearances during the said period, the balance demand would be around ₹ 36.24 lakhs, which they have de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
