9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 314 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability of Second Notice Extended period invoked - Whether a second show-cause notice issued by the Department for the period 4/2008 to 6/2009 for extended period on an issue was maintainable - the earlier show-cause notice dated 22-10-2008 had been issued for extended period on the same issue - Held that - The distinction attempted to be made by the Department of the grounds of appeal were not acceptable and rejected - if the second show cause notice was for the period prior to October, 2007 to March, 2008 when the method of taking Cenvat credit was first detected by audit - For the subsequent periods Department was aware of the credit taking methodology of appellant. NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, A. P. 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - once a show cause notice invoking extended period had been issued, no further show cause notice for the subsequent period invoking extended period can be issued to the assesse on the same issue. A show cause notice for the period October, 2007 to March, 2008 was first issued to the appellant on the same issue that appellant was taking credit on M.S. Channels, Angles, Beams, Jointing sheets etc. which was not considered admissible by the Department -The period of demand in the second show-cause notice is April, 2008 to June, 2009 was after the period October, 2007 to March, 2008 for which the first show cause notice was issued Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Whether a second show-cause notice invoking extended period can be issued when an earlier notice on the same issue has already been served. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved a dispute regarding the maintainability of a second show-cause notice issued by the Department for an extended period on an issue for which an earlier notice had been served. The Department argued that a subsequent notice invoking the extended period can be issued based on the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur. However, the Respondents contended that once an extended period notice has been issued, another notice for a subsequent period on the same issue cannot be served. The disputed items in question were MS Angles, Channel Bars, Rods & Plates, and the admissibility of Cenvat credit on these items was a key point of contention, as decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global. The Tribunal considered the legal position that once an extended period notice has been issued, no further notice for a subsequent period invoking the extended period can be served on the same issue. The Department relied on the Uniworth Textiles case to argue in favor of invoking the extended period in the second notice. However, the Tribunal analyzed the Uniworth Textiles case and distinguished it based on the specific facts and timing of the show-cause notices issued. The judgment highlighted the importance of the sequence of events and the timing of the notices in determining the applicability of the extended period. Referring to the Nizam Sugar Factory case decided by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized that the principle established in that case regarding the issuance of multiple notices for extended periods on the same issue was relevant to the present appeal. The Tribunal scrutinized the facts of both cases to draw parallels and concluded that the Department's reliance on the Uniworth Textiles judgment was misplaced due to the differing circumstances. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner (A). The decision was based on the application of legal principles regarding the issuance of show-cause notices for extended periods on the same issue and the specific facts of the case at hand. The judgment was pronounced in court on 11-4-2013.
|
