Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (1) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellants also manufacture confectionery (cakes, pastries biscuits etc.) in their in-house manufacturing facility for confectionery. A part of the confectionery so manufactured is consumed within the hotel premises in their business of catering/restaurant service. A minor part of the confectionery manufactured is sold to customers across the counter which is located inside the Hotel. The appellants are registered with the Service Tax Department and are paying service tax regularly including the services of Mandap keeper & Catering, Restaurants, etc. Prior to 2010, the appellants were availing SSI exemption. There was an inspection by Anti-Evasion Wing of the Department on 11/09/2008 and pursuant thereto show cause notice dated 03/06/2009 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the last 3 years, copy of ST returns, etc. Pursuant to audit no objection has been raised by the Department. In the meantime the appellants had surrendered that Central Excise Registration Certificate as they were not having taxable clearance of the confectionery items, as the SSI limit had been increased to about Rs. 4 crores. The appellants also filed application for refund of duty paid under protest which was refunded to them vide order dated 22/02/2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida. Subsequently the appellants applied for grant of Central Excise registration in April 2014, which was granted to them being certificate dated 24/04/2014. The reason stated by the Learned counsel for appellants for obtaining re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onwards and it does not include any of the clearances mention in Para-3A of said Notification. Accordingly, it appeared that appellants were liable to pay Central Excise Duty at appropriate rate as amended from time to time for clearance of the manufacture dutiable food items. For invocation of the extended period it was alleged that the appellants were working under self-assessment method and they had food revenue of more than Rs. 4 crores in 2008-09, but they never submitted any information to the Central Excise Authority about their sale being more than Rs. 4 crores since 2008-09, nor they paid Central Excise duty on year-to-year basis from 2010-11 to 2014-15 and it was also alleged that from April 2014, the appellants have again started .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n more than 10 minutes will render it useless. Further, observing that the process of making tea, coffee, lemonade, juice, cannot be said to be manufacturing process and therefore held that these are not liable to excise duty. 4. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Tribunal. The Learned counsel for the appellants urges that under the facts and circumstances the extended period of limitation is not invocable. It is an admitted fact that the earlier show cause notice was issued in June 2009, which was finally settled in favour of the appellants by Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in July, 2010 and subsequent grant of refund. Further, there was an audit during year 2010 in which the appellants had produced all t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s for allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order. 5. The Learned AR for the Revenue have relied on the findings of the Learned Commissioner in the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions I find that extended period of limitation is not invocable in the facts and circumstances, as admittedly the appellants were all along registered with the Central Excise Department/Services Tax Department. They had been filing their service tax returns which have never been found to be untrue and rejected by the Revenue. The earlier show cause notice dated 03/06/2009 was finally settled in their favour and refund allowed in July, 2010. Further, there was audit by the Commissionerate in July, 2010 and their books of accoun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates