TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant to evade the payment of tax. The assessee filed the return on 10/09/2009 giving complete details of CENVAT credit availed by them on tippers and it was not alleged by the department that the respondent had not given such details or given incorrect details in their ST3 return filed on 10/09/2009 or had availed credit fraudulently or without receiving the subject capital goods. In the case of P. V. Narayana Reddy [2008 (10) TMI 178 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], it has been held that demand raised invoking extended period when returns are regularly filed is not sustainable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/27922/2013-SM - Final Order No. 20357/2018 - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Madhups ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondent has suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed the factum of taking CENVAT credit on Tipper which is impermissible. He further submitted that the Revenue has invoked the extended period as provided in the provisio to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act and the original authority has clearly held that the respondent has suppressed the material fact with intention to evade payment of tax. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly held that the entire demand is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the period of limitation will not start from the date violation comes to the knowledge of the Department. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Jaishri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice is one year from the date when the ST3 return is filed or ought to have been filed and in the present case it is not disputed by the Department that the respondent had filed the ST3 return on 10/09/2009. That being the fact, the show-cause notice ought to have been issued on or before 10/09/2010 which has not been done whereas the Department issued the show-cause notice on 30/08/2011 demanding the CENVAT credit for the half year from April 2008 to September 2008 on the strength of ST3 returns which is clearly beyond the normal time limit of one year as per Section 73(1) of the Act. He also submitted that the Department has invoked the larger period as provided under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide their letter dt. 03/05/2010 which is a fact admitted in the show-cause notice itself. As per the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Act, the relevant date for issuing the show-cause notice is one year from the date when the ST3 return is filed or ought to have been filed and in the present case, the return was filed on 10/09/2009. Therefore the show-cause notice should have been issued on or before 10/09/2010 whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 13/08/2011 much after the normal period by invoking the larger period. The appellant failed to bring any material to show that there was suppression on the part of the appellant to evade the payment of tax. The assessee filed the return on 10/09/2009 giving complete details of CENVAT c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
