2018 (6) TMI 1679 - HC - Central Excise

Time Limitation - Authorized Service Station s Service - Servicing of Motor Vehicles Service - Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act 1944 - contention of the Department was that the Department became aware of illegal benefit of Cenvat credit only when the books of account were audited and therefore show cause notice was issued - HELD THAT - The appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law for adjudication by this Court and the proposed questions of law framed by the counsel in the memo of appeal are purely factual and this Court cannot go into these aspects in the appeal provided under Section 35 (G) of the Act. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act, 1944 based on time limitation for proceedings initiated.

Analysis:
The appellant, registered for providing specific services under the Finance Act, 1994, availed Cenvat Credit amounting to a significant sum. Upon audit, it was discovered that the credit was wrongly claimed, leading to a show cause notice demanding repayment along with interest and potential penalties. Despite the appellant's responses, the Adjudicating Authority upheld the demand, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed, prompting the current challenge.

The primary contention raised by the appellant centered on the time limitation for initiating proceedings. The disputed period ranged from 2011-12 to 2013-14, with the show cause notice issued on 5.10.2016, exceeding the normal period specified under Section 73(1) of the Act. The Department argued that the discovery of the erroneous credit during the audit justified the delayed notice issuance. This argument found favor with all relevant authorities, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

Upon review, the High Court, after considering the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, concluded that the appeal did not raise substantial legal questions for the Court's consideration. The proposed questions of law were deemed factual, falling outside the purview of the appeal process under Section 35(G) of the Act. Consequently, the Court found no merit or substance in the appeal and proceeded to dismiss it accordingly.