TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed history of the issue under consideration. Apart from a bald allegation there is no evidence adduced by department to establish supression or mis-statement of facts. The relied upon documents as stated in the show cause notice itself, establishes that appellant is not guilty of suppression of facts or mis-statement. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - E/20143/2014 - A/30288/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. After due process of law the original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 4,80,662/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved the appellants filed appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein upheld, the demand, interest and penalty. Hence the present appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Chartered Accountant Shri Sudhir, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissible till the amendment of the definition of inputs w.e.f. 07.07.2009. That appellant bonafidely believed that credit is admissible. The notice has been issued invoking extended period alleging suppression basing upon the judgment laid in Vandana Global Ltd., case 2010 TIOL-624 Cestat-Del-LB which held that the amendment is retrospective. That the Honble High Court in the case of Mundra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the records. It cannot be disputed that boilers reactors have to be fixed/installed using support structures to put such capital goods for use in the manufacturing process. As per the show cause notice the department has relied upon the ER-1 returns, invoices furnished by appellant, and RG-23C Part-II copies attached to the returns to raise the demand. Though the appellant filed returns p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not guilty of suppression of facts or mis-statement. In view there of extended period is not invokable. In similar set of facts, the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs CCE, Raipur [2016 (332) ELT 356 (Tri-Del)] has held that the demand is barred by limitation and is not sustainable. 7. Following the judgment laid in the above case, I hold that the demand is time barred. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
