9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1290 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - extended period of limitation - Held that - the fact regarding wrong availment of cenvat credit by the appellant was within the knowledge of the department way back in March, 2000 itself, and in such eventuality, the department was required to issue the SCN within the normal period of one year as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 - the SCN having being issued beyond the period of one year from the relevant date, the same is barred by limitation of time - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Limitation for show cause notice in cenvat credit demand case. Analysis: The appeal was against an order passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal, confirming demands towards cenvat credit and interest. The appellant argued that the show cause proceedings were not sustainable due to limitation. The period in dispute was March 2000, and the show cause notice was issued on 13/12/2005. The appellant contended that since the matter was already litigated before, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The appellant's advocate emphasized that the plea of ignorance could not justify the extended period of limitation for the present show cause notice. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had finalized the provisional assessment of RT-12 return in 2004, confirming the cenvat demand and interest against the appellant. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in 2005 held that a separate show cause notice was required for the realization of wrongly availed cenvat credit. The appellate authority's decision indicated that the department was aware of the issue in March 2000 itself. As per Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a show cause notice should have been issued within one year from the relevant date. Since the notice was issued beyond the one-year period, it was considered time-barred. Consequently, the confirmed demands against the appellant were deemed unsustainable solely on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the decision. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court.
|
