New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 1215 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (9) TMI 1215 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - 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 re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, Hon ble Member (Technical),J. For the Appellant : 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 adjudi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and appellant was under bonafide belief that 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 followin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the first appellate authority in Para 5.7 of 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the extended limitation period, unless there 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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