TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the manufacturing of final products of the appellant. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - In the absence of any communication from the department to the appellant as to the correctness of the cenvat credit availed, I find that the plea that the show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 seeking the demand of cenvat credit availed during the period Sept. 2011 to August 2012 is blatantly hit by limitation - demand barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/30957/2016 - A/30664/2017 - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - M.V. Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Ms. A.S.K. Swetha, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: Mr. M. V. Ravindran] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellate authority also held that the credit availed on input services is not eligible as also upholding the findings of the adjudicating authority on limitation. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that they are contesting the issue on merits as well as on limitation. It is her submission that on merits, the services rendered by various Service providers in respect of furtherance of business of the appellant i.e. manufacturing of High Carbon Ferro Chrome. She would then explain the requirement of coal mine concessions, environmental impact and obtaining clearance from Airports Authority etc. It is her further submission that the invoices for which cenvat credit was availed was for due diligence of ferro chrome properties in Turkey, Indonesia etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the absence of any requirement to show or in enclosed invoices, therefore suppression of facts cannot be allowed. 5. Ld. Departmental representative on the other hand submits that the services which were received by appellant had no nexus to the manufacturing activity undertaken by appellant who is manufacturing high ferro chrome. It is his further submission that these services which were received by appellant, were not in respect of any manufacturing activity or consultancy towards that but were for due diligence of coal mines, Environmental impact assessment for the proposed coal based Thermal Power plant, obtaining clearance from airport authority and environmental consultancy for proposed super critical Thermal Power plant in Chh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties regarding availment of cenvat credit in the monthly returns. It was for the department to call for the details and verify as to whether the details which have been submitted in the returns are correct or otherwise. In the absence of any communication from the department to the appellant as to the correctness of the cenvat credit availed, I find that the plea that the show cause notice dated 04.07.2013 seeking the demand of cenvat credit availed during the period Sept. 2011 to August 2012 is blatantly hit by limitation. I find that the decision in the case of Pushp Enterprises (supra) on similar circumstances is in favour of appellant and the relevant para No.10 is reproduced: In these cases, there is no dispute about the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and hence the subsequent defence of the assessee thereon as to extended period cannot be invoked as the department was in the knowledge, was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. The facts of the case in Neeminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd were totally different than the facts of the case herein. As regards the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakhan Singh Co. Vs. CCE, Jaipur (supra) , I find that the facts in this case also were- different inasmuch whether the services rendered by the assessee therein would amount to cargo handling services or other services. Since the facts are totally different than the case in hand, I find that the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Pushp Enterprises and Shah Alloys Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
