9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in their favour by the Tribunal, in their own case reported in N.R. Agarwal Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Vapi[2007 – TMI – 1814 – CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] decisions were in favour of the assessees, the bonafide belief on the part of the appellant that the said items were capital goods for the purposes of modvat credit, has to be upheld - Accordingly the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e eligible inputs. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant assails the impugned demand on limitation by submitting that the show cause notice for the period 01.04.03 to March 2008 was issued on 05.08.08. He submits that the said disputed issue was decided in their favour by the Tribunal, in their own case reported in N.R. Agarwal Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Vapi reported in 2007 (215) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be invoked. 3. After hearing the learned DR, I agree with the submissions of the learned advocate. In as much as the period involved is prior to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. and some of the earlier decisions were in favour of the assessees, the bonafide belief on the part of the appellant that the said items were capital goods for the purposes of modvat cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
