9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking the job work was in the knowledge of Revenue - Revenue as well as the appellants were entertaining a belief that they are entitled to do the job work - appellants’ sister concern who received the goods from the appellants was utilizing the same for the manufacture of their final product on which duty was being paid by them. As such the duty even if paid by the appellants would have been available as Modvat credit to their sister concern who was in a position to use the same for payment of duty on their final product. As such the appellants were not benefited by this procedure being adopted by them - appellants have a good case on limitation as also on revenue-neutrality – waiver of pre-deposit allowed. - E/2045-2046/2011 - 219-220/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . By drawing our attention to the fact that the fact of doing the job work was being reflected by them in their ER-2 Returns and no objection was ever raised by Revenue, he submits that the appellants cannot be saddled down with any mala fide misrepresentation or suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty. He also draws our attention to the fact that all the above documents were placed before the Commissioner at the time of filing the reply to show cause notice who has failed to consider the same and has simplicitor held that the longer period of limitation was available to the Revenue. 5. Ld. Advocate also submits that the entire exercise is Revenue neutral in as much as the duty, if any, paid by the appellants on the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards the appellants contention of reflecting the above facts in the monthly ER-2 Return, he submits that he said returns filed with appeal papers are not certified to be correct copies of the returns and as such no reliance should be placed on the same. He draws our attention to the provisions of Rule 28 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, laying down that the content of appeal/application/cross objections should be verified by the applicant regarding the statement by the appellant or the respondent or principal officer authorized to sign the appeal/cross objections. As such he submits that the documents filed by the appellants should not be accepted on their face value in as much as the same are not verified regarding their correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the intention to evade payment of duty. Noticee started job work for DTA Units in the month of May, 2008. Noticee reversed Cenvat credit availed on inputs, i.e., HPS used in the job work for DTA Units on a regular basis as required under the law. This reversal has been duly accounted for in Excise Monthly Return filed under rule 17(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the month of June, 2008 and acknowledged by Central Excise Authority on dated July, 2008. In addition to the aforesaid, Noticee s records such as Challans, Invoices, Ledger account, incoming and outgoing register and Job work register of Noticee Company provide proper accountal for the movement of raw material and the work carried out. It is very relevant that Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on notification. It is pertinent to note that this view was also not contested and/or disputed by the Department. (Reference in this regard is made to Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore cited as 2007(215)E.L.T.0169). 5. It is stated that from the correspondence exchanged between the Department and Noticee Company, it is dear that both the Department and Noticee were considering that the activities carried out by the Noticee Company as permissible activities under the relevant provisions of law. 9. As against the above, the Commissioner has dealt with their plea of limitation in following manner :- 6.19. Regarding applicability of Notification 214/86, I find that he benefit of the said notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger period of limitation or not arises only in cases where there is violation of provisions of law and the demand is otherwise sustainable on merits. The very fact that the demand is sustainable on merits, by itself cannot be made a ground for invoking the longer period of limitation. If that be so, the plea of limitation would lose its availability in as much as in all the cases where the demand is capable of being sustained on merits, the plea of limitation would be lost, making the provisions of Section 11A redundant. 11. Having observed so, we proceed to examine the appellants plea of limitation. We have seen ER-2 Returns filed by the appellants (some samples) wherein the fact of doing the job work clearly reflected. We have examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
