9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 531 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - Cenvat Credit - Show cause notice stand raised on 27/2/2010 for the period December 2006 to November 2007 Held that - There were decisions in favour of the assessee laying down that such use of various iron and steel items was admissible cenvatable inputs. The matter was subsequently declared against the assessee by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - The Hon ble Supreme Court in number of cases s.a. Continental Foundation Jt. Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (11) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has held that where there are decisions in favour of the assessee during the relevant period or there are contrary decisions or the matters are referred subsequently to the Larger Bench, no allegation of suppression can be attributed to the assessee - Longer period is not available to the Revenue for raising and confirming the demands The Show- cause Notice issued to the appellant is time-barred - Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Availability of extended period of limitation for raising and confirming demands by the Revenue. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI pertains to a case where the demand of duty was raised against the appellant for denying Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used as structural during a specific period. The issue at hand was whether the extended period of limitation was available to the Revenue for raising and confirming the demands. The appellant's case was supported by the fact that during the relevant period, there were decisions favoring the assessee regarding the admissibility of such inputs. However, the matter was subsequently decided against the assessee by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted that in situations where there are decisions in favor of the assessee during the relevant period or when matters are referred to the Larger Bench, no allegation of suppression can be attributed to the assessee, as per various decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court cited in the judgment. The Tribunal, in alignment with the aforementioned decisions, held that the longer period is not available to the Revenue for raising and confirming demands in cases where there have been conflicting decisions during the relevant period. As the show cause notice in the present case was issued beyond the statutory limitation period for the period in question, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief. The judgment emphasized that the factual limitation period for raising demands must be adhered to, and in this case, the notice issued in 2010 for the period from December 2006 to November 2007 was deemed time-barred. The appeal and stay petition were disposed of accordingly, granting relief to the appellant based on the limitation aspect and the absence of suppression on their part.
|
