TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certainly time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - CEA No. 12/2016 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2017 - S. C. Sharma And Alok Verma, JJ. Mr Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr M.P. Devnath, learned counsel for the respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 17-07-2015 passed by the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Excise Appeal No. 52650/2014. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent Industry registered with Central Excise Department is engaged in the manufacture of Viscose Staple Fiber, Sodium Sulphate, Sulphuric Acid etc. and they are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d examined appeal records. The point for decision is whether or not the appellant is liable to pay 10% of value of electricity wheeled out of their factory during the relevant period. Another important issue for decision is whether the show cause notice-cumdemand dated 12-11-2009 covering the period of April 2005 to June 2009 is hit by time bar. On perusal of the case details it is clear that the matter regarding the status of electricity whether the same is excisable, exempted is a matter of dispute and has been subject matter of various rulings by CESTAT, Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the appellant's own case earlier proceedings were initiated on the same grounds and adjudication were done. In 2006 same iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate officer within six months from the relevant date. (The expression 'relevant date' is defined in the Section itself). But the said period of six months gets extended to five years where such non-levy, short levy, etc, is by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules within intent to evade payment of duty......... 6. Now so far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident that the requisite intent, ie.... intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far a mis-statement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word willful preceding the words mis-statement of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances and because the facts establish that the mis-statement of facts in the declaration filed by the appellant or the suppression of facts therein, as the case may be cannot be called willful, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. In light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the apex court the allegation of willful suppression with intent to evade was not established, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal. In the present case the show cause notice cum demand issued by the respondent is certainly time barred. The impugned order dated 17-07-2015 passed by the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal does not warrant any interference. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
