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 (10) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... along with ER-1 return showing detailed information of invoice No., date, description of inputs, amount of Cenvat credit etc. to the department. In the ER-1 return also, the attachment of this annexure is mentioned. From the annexure of the Cenvat credit, it is found that the description of the input has been mentioned. With these information provided to the department, nothing more than that is required for the department, if at all they wish to issue SCN, nothing prevented to the department from issuing the SCN within the normal period of one year at least from filing of the return. The period involved in the present case is July and August 2009 whereas the SCN was issued on 17.07.2012 which is much after the normal period of one year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sent appeal. 2. Sh. W. Christian. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant have used steel in the manufacture of 46 machineries/ equipment which are further used in the factory of the manufacture. The appellants case is squarely covered by explanation-II of Rule 2(k) therefore, the question of applying ratio of Vandana Global s case does not arise. He placed reliance in the following judgments. Mundra Ports SEZ Ltd. vs CCE 2015 (39) STR 726 (Guj.), Thiru Arooram Sugars vs CESTAT 2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.). He further submits that the appellant have availed Cenvat Credit only in respect of 2200 MT of Steel as against the procurement of approx. 4200 MT. This shows the bonafide of the appellant that they have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... one correlation is required, his finding regarding the evidence is based on presumption. He further submits that Cenvat credit cannot be denied even on the ground that machineries and equipments manufactured by the appellant are movable or immovable. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgment. 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC) CCE vs Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. 2016 (9) TMI 682-CESTAT Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd. vs CCE 2016 (10) TMI 615-CESTAT Lafarge India Pvt. ltd. vs CCE 2017 (349) ELT 133 (Mad), 2017 (354) ELT A192 (SC) CCE vs Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 263 CESTAT GSFC LTd. vs CCE 2017 (6) TMI 846 CESTAT Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. vs CCE 2015 (321) ELT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. 2010 (253) ELT440 (Tri. LB). In the case of Vandana Global even after the Larger Bench judgment, the matter was taken up with Chhattisgarh High Court wherein the Larger Bench judgment was set aside. In view of these various proceedings on the legal issue involved in the present case, malafide intention cannot be alleged against the appellant. Therefore the entire demand is hit by limitation on the facts as well as on the law. 5. Sh. Amit Mishra Ld. Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the entire defense of the appellant is that they have produced the Chartered Engineer Certificate which was obtained .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s much after the normal period of one year. Moreover, this issue was highly debatable and the matter was referred to the Larger Bench in Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). Despite the Vandana Global case decided the matter against the assesse, the same was differed by the Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court. In this legal position no malafide intention can be proved against the appellant. Considering the same set of issue and facts in the various judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel it was held that the demand for extended period cannot be raised. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand is clearly hit by limitation. Since we decide this case only on the limitation, we are not going into the other facts and legal issue. As per .....

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