TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing under different chapters. The respondent availed the Cenvat credit of duty of Central Excise paid on such items under the head capital goods for the year 2005-2006. Revenue authorities during the verification of the documents, came to the conclusion that the respondent is not eligible to avail the Cenvat credit on such capital goods as the items would not get covered under the category of capital goods. A show cause notice dated 12.06.2008 issued to the respondent. Respondent contested the show cause notice on various grounds including ground of limitation. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised in show cause notice of disallowing the Cenvat credit on such goods and also imposed equivalent penalty besides demanding interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that during the relevant period, there were two different views taken by the Tribunals on the very same issue one in favour of assessee and one in favour of Revenue. It is his submission that they entertained a bona fide belief that they are eligible for the Cenvat credit on these items. He would rely upon the following decisions for the proposition that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked since there being a bona fide belief: a) Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I - 2009 (235) ELT 636 (Tri.-LB) b) Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC) c) Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) d) Liberty Phosphate Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2007 (218) EL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) findings are factual findings which have not been contested by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal. In the grounds of appeal, only there is a statement that the appellant had intention to evade duty and avail ineligible credit. Since the Revenue has not factually challenged or contested the limitation, I find that on limitation, the appeal has to fail. Apex Court in Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), wherein their Lordships have settled the law which is as under: In this case, there was a divergent view of the various High Courts whether crushing of bigger stones or boulders into smaller pieces amounts to manufacture. In view of the divergent views, of the various High Courts, there was a bona fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
