TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, marred with conflicting views of this Tribunal resulting into the present reference to Larger Bench - the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos. E/519,520/2006 - A/88009-88010/2018 - Dated:- 27-11-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate, for appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These two appeals are filed against order-in-original No. 22/CEX/2005 dated 31.10.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I. 2. Various issues were ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal M/s. Thermax Babcock. The question referred to this larger bench is answered accordingly. Registry is directed to place the appeals before the referral bench for appropriate orders. Consequent to the said order, the matter is listed before this Bench for disposal. 3. Learned Advocate, Shri Rajesh Ostwal for the appellant, submits that in view of the observation of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, no doubt the appellant is required on merit to discharge duty of ₹ 27,49,952/- for the period September 2001 to June 2002, however, since the show cause notice was issued on 18.7.2003 for recovery of the said amount pertaining to the period September 2001 to June 2002, therefore, the demand is barred by limitation. It is his con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02. The learned Advocate fairly admits that on merit, the issue has been decided against the appellant. However, he has vehemently argued that in absence of suppression and misdeclaration, larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. We find force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant. Firstly, all the movements of inputs/raw materials from the principal manufacturer to the appellant s factory were in accordance with Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002; also, the issue of liability to discharge duty on the processed goods by the job worker when the raw materials were received under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, marred with conflicting views of this Tribunal resulting into the present refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
