TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From this it is not found, as contended by the learned DR, that the appellant had given up its claim on merits or on limitation. The issue has been decided without going into the merits. Also, admittedly there is no finding of suppression or fraud or misstatement etc. to extend the larger period of limitation. Appeal is allowed on limitation without going into the merits of the case. - ST/20787/2018-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 135/2018-CT dated 13/02/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore-II (Appeals)] - Final Order No. 21096/2018 - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - Shri. P Dinesha, J. Smt. Neethu James, Advocate For the Appellant. Shri. K. Murali, Superintendent (AR)For the Respondent. ORDER P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Andheri, Mumbai ABB/GLT2/DC/13/2013 dt. 6.1.2014 36,137 4 Faridabad ABB/GLT2/DC/10/2013 dt. 06.01.2014 137927 5 Nelamangala ABB/GLT2/DC/12/2013 dt. 06.01.2014 360777 6 Nasik ABB/GLT2/DC/14/2013 dt. 06.01.2014 74007 7 Taloja, Raigad ABB/GLT2/C/08/2013 dt. 06.01.2014 206720 Total 832482/- The appellant vide its letters dated 09.09.2014 and 08.05.2015 replied to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Thousand only) under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Aggrieved by that part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is preferring this appeal before this forum. 3. Heard Smt. Neethu James, advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri K. Murali, Superintendent for the Revenue and perused the records. 4. During the course of hearing, Smt. Neethu James appearing for the assessee primarily contended that the issue in dispute relates to the period January 2010 to December 2010 for which show-cause notices have been issued in 2014 without any allegation of suppression or fraud or mis-statement and the Revenue is not permitted to invoke the extended period of limitation. In this regard, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and various judgments relied upon by the appellant in support of his submission, mainly on limitation, I find that in the present case invoking the longer period is not sustainable because on the same issue earlier show-cause notices are pending decision before the Tribunal. Further I find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court. I find that in the case of ECE Industries ltd. (supra), on an identical issue, the Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the demand on limitation. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant findings of the Hon ble Apex Court. 4. In the case of M/s. P B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d respectfully following the same, hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. 13. Further in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. cited supra, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 3. We are of the opinion that the present appeal warrants to be allowed only on the ground that the impugned show cause notice was time barred and it was not a case where the Revenue could invoke the provisions of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and take benefit of the extended period of limitation. From the facts noted above, it becomes clear that the Department had issued Show Cause Notice way back on 18-2-1994 asking the appellant to reclassify the goods under Chapter Heading 3920. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
