TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) 1. In response to notice for final disposal issued by us on 05.12.2012, learned counsel, Mr. Ravani appeared for the respondent. Learned advocates appearing for the parties agreed that in this tax appeal, all questions stand covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Prayagraj Dying Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Vs. Union of India ors dated 28.09.2012 passed in Tax Appeal No. 1153 of 2011. In the said decision, the Court held as under: 5. We notice that in case of Prayagraj Dying Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Vs. Union of India Ors (supra) the Division Bench had answered all the questions in favour of the revenue except the question of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by practising fraud, the appellants being holders in due course for valuable consideration without notice, the larger period of limitation cannot be extended in the case before us. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR vs. E. MERCK INDIA LTD. reported in 2009 (238) ELT 386 (SC) where the Supreme Court took a view that in the absence of a willful misdeclaration on the part of the respondent-assessee, there was no scope of invoking invoking Section 11.A of the Act. 14. We now propose to deal with the decisions cited by the Revenue. 14.1 In the case of Narayanan v. Kumaram reported in 2004 (4) SCC 26, the question before the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 13931 of 2011 on 15th September 2011 ultimately came to the conclusion that three authorities below had examined the petitioner's rebate claim and found that the goods were purchased from non-existent and fictitious parties and Cenvat credit was wrongly availed. The Division Bench was of the view that the authorities had examined the cases in detail and no interference was called for because several issues of facts have been gone into, examined and conclusions had been arrived at on the basis of evidence on record, and such conclusions are not pointed out to be perverse. The Division Bench distinguished the case of the earlier Division Bench in the case of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have already pointed out that in that case, the document was established to be forged whereas in the cases before us, the document is not alleged to be a forged one, and therefore, we have already pointed out that the said decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case. 14.5 In the case of Munjal Shows Limited v. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Delhi IV, Faridabad) reported in 2009 (246) ELT 18 [P H], the Punjab Haryana High Court found that the document under which exemption was claimed was forged and in such a situation, according to the Division Bench of the said Court, the purchaser would step into the shoes of the seller and did not acquire a better title than the seller. 14.5.1 We have alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on intelligence then received, the Central Intelligence Unit of the Mumbai Custom House commenced an investigation and it was then revealed that there was reason to doubt the veracity of at least some of the aforestated documents upon which the respondent had relied. The Revenue then preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and sought to condone the delay in filing the appeal, setting out in some detail the reason for which the appeal had been filed after the period of limitation. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajitsingh Thakursingh Anr. v. State of Gujarat [(1981) 1 SCC 495] and observing that it could not look into the nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant and only because the original manufacturer who was registered with the Revenue was not subsequently traceable, the notice was issued. 14.9 We, thus, find that the decisions relied upon by the Revenue are of no avail to the respondents. 15. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that the documents, invoices in question, issued by the registered licencee being genuine and in the absence of any allegations against the appellants of fraud, the Tribunal should not have remanded the matter back as the claim was totally barred by limitation. 16. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is a fit case of setting aside the order of the Tribunal below and we consequently hold that in the cases before us, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
