Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Bhopal

2016 (3) TMI 521 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Invocation of extended period - Period of limitation - cenvat credit on tower components - duty demand - Held that:- On perusal of the documents, it is seen that there is no categorical evidence for due service of notice issued on 6.12.2010. In the absence of a clear evidence to that effect it is to be concluded that the notice dated 6.12.2010 was not evidenced to have been served prior to 12.01.2012.

Admittedly, the issue involved here is the eligibility of various tower components, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ligible items. Failure to do so will result in invocation of extended period. Find that such reasoning is not sustainable either in law or on fact. Considering the issue involved has been the subject matter of interpretation before the various authorities including courts, the invocation of extended period in the present set of facts cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order, in so far as it relates to the cenvat credit on tower components, is not sustainable on the ground of time bar .....

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 services. Here, the dispute arose regarding the appellant's eligibility to take cenvat credit on certain capital goods. The proceedings were initiated against them by issue of show cause notice dated 6.12.2010. After due process, the Original Authority vide order dated 27.03.2012 confirmed the recovery of ₹ 6,99,380/- towards cenvat credit taken on tower materials. He also confirmed the recovery of interest on wrong availment of credit on capital goods to the extent of 100% in a f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2.2010 was not received by them and when the case was fixed for personal hearing, they approached the Department and were given a copy of show cause notice on 12.1.2012 only. As such, ld. Counsel pleaded that the whole proceedings against them is time barred as there is no case of suppression, fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement with intent to evade duty on their part. Ld. Counsel also submitted that even if the Department's plea that the such show cause notice has been dispatched on 7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Authorities and in such circumstances, it cannot be alleged that the appellant had willfully suppressed or mis-stated any facts. They have been filing regular Statutory Returns, which indicated the amount of credit taken by them including these tower materials also. 3. Ld. AR submitted that the jurisdictional Commissioner vide his Order dated 8.01.2016 stated that the said show cause notice has been dispatched by speed post and there is no question of non-service of the said notice. 4. I have he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version