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

Commr. of Central Excise, Kol. II Versus M/s Century Plyboards (India) Ltd. And Vice-Versa

2018 (1) TMI 420 - CESTAT KOLKATA

CENVAT credit - input service - Advertisement and Publicity used on their traded goods - suppression of facts - Held that: - it is clearly evident that the department was aware about the availment of input service credit towards advertisement and publicity for brand promotion taken on account of trading goods. So, the allegation made in the SCN dated 04.04.2012 that there is a suppression of fact from the department with intent to evade payment of duty cannot be sustained - Hon’ble Supreme Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the period from June 2010 to March 2011 - in the present case, there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty or collusion etc. and therefore the demand of duty for the normal period of limitation is to be invoked. - Penalty - Held that: - There is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore imposition of penalty is not justified. - Appeal allowed in part. - Ex. Appeal No. 72062/13 & CO/70386/13, Ex. Appeal Nos. 75283/17 - Order N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on Board etc. classifiable under Chapter 44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also engaged in the activity of Trading of Plywood of different types, namely, Decorative Plywood, Laminated Plywood etc. They are availing Cenvat credit benefit on inputs, capital goods and input services. (ii) A Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2011 was issued proposing to disallow Input Service Credit of ₹ 4,00,523.00 availed on Advertisement and Publicity for brand promotion on account of trading .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otice dated 04.04.2012 and dropped the entire proceedings on the ground that the demand is barred by extended period of limitation. (v) Revenue filed this appeal No. E/72062 /2013 against which the Assessee filed Cross Objection No.CO/70386/13. (vi) The Adjudicating authority by Order dated 04.06.2013 adjudicated the proceeding against Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2011 and disallowed the Input Service Credit of ₹ 4,00,523.00 along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of Cenva .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d on their traded goods. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the provisions of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules has been amended by Notification No. 3/2011-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2011 to substitute Rule 6(1) the Cenvat Credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of inputs or inputs services which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, except in the circumstances mentioned in sub Rule (2). It is further submitted that with effect from 01. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

department is well aware of the facts. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Central Excise rightly dropped the demand as time barred. He relied upon the following decisions : a) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise A.P. : 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) b) Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited Vs. Union of India 2011 (269) ELT 159 (Guj) 5. The Learned A/R for the Revenue submitted with regard to the appeal filed by the Revenue that the assessee had not submitted the facts and figures to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said Show Cause Notice that the audit was conducted by the Officers of Kolkata VII Commissionerate during 22.01.2008 to 30.01.2008 and detected major discrepancies in respect of Cenvat Credit. The relevant portion of the said Show Cause Notice dated 25.08.2008 is reproduced below : Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 46,62,995/- (Rupees Forty-six lac sixty-two thousand nine hundred ninety five) only fraudulently availed by them on service tax paid by them towards advertisement and publicity for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods. So, the allegation made in the Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2012 that there is a suppression of fact from the department with intent to evade payment of duty cannot be sustained. The Learned A/R for the Revenue explained that the assessee had not supplied the documents. I find that the purported Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2012 was issued on verification of Service Tax on advertisement ledger account and the statement of summary of trading sales. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same, hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. 10. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal Nos. 2747 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2003 filed by the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd other decisions on the identical issue allowed the petition. It has been held as under : 16. On a conjoint reading of the earlier show cause notices and the present show cause notices, it is apparent that the facts stated therein as well as the allegations made therein are more or less similar. The only difference, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents is that in the impugned show cause notices, there is a reference to intelligence gathered by the central excise authoritie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ard, it may be pertinent to note that the earlier show cause notices came to be issued on 4-5-2000, 12-1-2001 and 26-6-2001, that is after most of the statements were recorded and as such, the reference to intelligence in the impugned show cause notices is of no consequence, since all the said facts were already before the central excise authorities at the time when the earlier show cause notices came to be issued. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned show cause notices are based on ne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere already in the knowledge of the authorities. In the circumstances, the respondents were not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation in respect of earlier periods by issuing the impugned show cause notices, on the plea of suppression of facts by the petitioners, as the facts were already in the knowledge of the Department. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned show cause notices F.No. V.15/15- 60/OA/2002 and F.No. V.15/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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