TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be deposited u/s 11D of CEA,1944 with the department. Whether the demand for the period March 2003 to February 2007 can be enforced when the demand notice was issued on 14.9.2007? - Held that: - in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for recovery of the amount - Pratibha Syntex Ltd. vs. UOI [2013 (3) TMI 480 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] observed that judging the period of limitation from the armchair of a reasonable person under no circumstance more than three years period could be considered as a reasonable period for effecting recovery of the amount. Therefore, recovery could be effected for three years from the date of issue of show cause notice. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansaction value which was higher than the amount of credit availed on the inputs as such. It is his contention that even though the law has been changed with effect from 1.3.2003, they continued to pay duty on the transaction value of the inputs cleared as such. He submitted that excess amount collected from the customers as duty through invoices had already been paid to the Department, therefore, directing to deposit the same again is contrary to the law prescribed u/s 11D of the CEA, 1944. In support, the ld. Advocate relied on the judgement of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Shivam Metals - 2015 (326) ELT 558 (Raj.) ; Larger Bench decision in the case of Unison Metals Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ahmedabad-I - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Government u/s 11D of the CEA, 1944. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the record. I find that the Gujarat Hon ble High Court after considering the relevant provision in similar facts and circumstances in Inductortherm (I) Pvt. Ltd.'s case observed that the excess amount collected from the customers is required to be deposited u/s 11D of the CEA, 1944. Their Lordship had observed as follows: 18. With this background, we if peruse Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it emerges that under sub-section (1) thereof, every person who is liable to pay duty under the Act or the Rules made thereunder and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and notice was issued on 14.9.2007. In the aforesaid case where the Hon ble High Court observed that the in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for recovery of the amount. More or less in similar circumstances, where the Hon ble Gujarat High Court while directing recovery of the amount in Pratibha Syntex Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2013 (287) ELT 290 (Guj.) observed that judging the period of limitation from the armchair of a reasonable person under no circumstance more than three years period could be considered as a reasonable period for effecting recovery of the amount. Therefore, in my view, recovery could be effected for three years from the date of issue of show cause notice. Consequently, the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
