Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara

2015 (9) TMI 1215 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:-after relying upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Padmini Products vs. CCE [1989 (8) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], held that for invocation of extended period there has to be some evidence that an assessee knew that they were liable to pay duty. That mere failure to pay duty or taking license is not enough to invoke extended period - when CENVAT credit is reflected in periodical returns then extended p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant : Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Gonind Jha, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. PJ-394-395-VDR-I-2012-13 dated 23.01.2013 under which CENVAT credit disallowed by the adjudicating authority has been upheld. 2. Shri Willingdon Christian, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that two OIOs were passed by the adjudicating authority denying CENVAT credit where .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such CENVAT credit was admissible. Learned Advocate further argued that when appellant was holding a bonafide belief then extended period can not be invoked as the CENVAT credit taken during the relevant period were periodically shown in the Central Excise returns filed with the department. That in case the Central Excise officers had any doubt, they were free to enquire from appellant the details of the services received. He relied upon the following case laws:- (a) CCE, Jaipur vs. Pushp Enter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

OIA dated 23.01.2013. 4. Herd both sides and perused the case records. The limited issue raised by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant is that there was no suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty or taking wrong credit, therefore, extended period is not applicable. He relied upon the case law of CCE, Jaipur vs. Pushp Enterprises (supra). Para 9 and 10 of this case are reproduced below:- 9. From perusal of the proviso to Section 11A(1) and Section 11AC, it is clea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is evidence that the manufacturer knew that goods were liable to duty or he was required to take out a licence and, therefore, mere failure to pay the duty or take out the licence is not enough to invoke these proviso. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited (supra) and Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Karnataka Agro Chemicals (supra). 10. In these cases, there is no dispute about the fact that the ER-I Returns had discl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version