Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (10) TMI 370

..... impugned services and on appeal by the Department, the Commissioner(Appeals) has reversed the decision of the original authority and has also held that the appellant has suppressed the material fact from the Department and has not disclosed the same in their ST3 return. The finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) that the appellants have not disclosed these facts and have not filed the ST3 returns is factually incorrect. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Once the appellant has disclosed all the facts in the ST3 returns and has not suppressed any facts from the Department, then the Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation and confirmed the demand - In the present case, the period of dispute is January 2012 to March 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... r, the Department filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the Department. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted at the outset that though they have a good case on merits, he is confining his arguments only on the point of limitation because the entire demand is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the entire demand has been confirmed on account of the fact that the appellant has suppressed the material fact and they had neither mentioned the fact of availing the CENVAT credit in their ER1 returns filed with the Department nor did they inform the Department in any manner. The learned counsel submitted that this finding o .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... 45-CESTATMUM] v. Bharat Friz Werners Ltd. Vs. CCE [Final order No.20450/2019 dt. 31/05/2019] vi. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [Final Order No.20469/2018 dt. 01/03/2018] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions by both the sides and material on record, I find that the original authority has allowed the CENVAT credit on the impugned services and on appeal by the Department, the Commissioner(Appeals) has reversed the decision of the original authority and has also held that the appellant has suppressed the material fact from the Department and has not disclosed the same in their ST3 return. The finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) that the appellants have not disclosed t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||