TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Balance Sheet only during the investigation and not prior to that? - demand for extended period of limitation and penalty. HELD THAT:- Undisputed facts of the case are, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the show cause notice, it was issued based on the balance sheet for the year ending 2008. Thus, the contentions of the Revenue that respondents trading activity was not known to the department and that it was learnt based on intelligence report are not tenable. In Shriram Value Services Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 1174 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] , the Madras High Court has held that at the relevant period of time. Viz., from April 2009 to March 2011, the Assessee was, obviously, under bona fide belief in view of the conflicting decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended period by ignoring the factual findings arrived at in Order-In-Original by the Commissioner thereby leading to perversity in the impugned Final Order? 3. Whether, mere availability of details of trading in Balance Sheet is sufficient to drop the demand for extended period on the ground that there was no suppression? 4. Whether, the CESTAT is right in attributing the prior knowledge of trading activity of the respondent ignoring the fact that the respondent produced the Balance Sheet only during the investigation and not prior to that? 5. Whether, the CESTAT is right in setting aside the demand for extended period along with penalties imposed by relying upon the decisions of Tribunal in the case of respondent own case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s holding that the Cenvat credit was inadmissible for trading activities and it was disallowed. Further direction was issued for appropriation of the said sum in the Cenvat account on 31.08.2010 and it was paid under protest. 4. On appeal, the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT for short) held that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee with an intent to evade payment of tax and it confirmed the demand only for normal period i.e., disallowed appropriation of the payment made under protest on 31.08.2010 and interest at applicable rate and penalty of equal sum holding that there was no evasion of payment of tax and set-aside the demand for the extended period of limitation and confirmed the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an assessee has acted in good faith, invoking extended period of limitation is not tenable. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 9. Undisputed facts of the case are, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the show cause notice, it was issued based on the balance sheet for the year ending 2008. Thus, the contentions of the Revenue that respondents trading activity was not known to the department and that it was learnt based on intelligence report are not tenable. 10. In Shriram Value Services Pvt. Ltd., the Madras High Court has held as follows: From the above, it is clear that the position was clarified by the Government by insertion of Explanation only with effect from 1-4-2011 that the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
