9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en that the assessee had a decision in his favour and therefore it was reasonable on its part to hold a belief that the Cenvat credit was available. It was only subsequently that the issue came to be decided against him. It was hardly a relevant aspect. The assessee acted bona fide and in honest belief that Cenvat credit was available. In the facts and circumstances, no intention could be ascribed on the part of the assessee to evade the duty or suppress any fact. In that view, there was no justification in invoking the longer period of limitation beyond the normal period as the conditions therefor were not satisfied. The question formulated does not raise any substantial question of law - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 1187 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely angles, beams, plates, M.S. Channels, sheets, welding rods, etc., which were used for construction of sheds and flooring of the area situated outside the plant area, it was for period from 1-3-2003 to March, 2008. 3.1 As per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee could take and utilize Cenvat credit on capital goods, which are used directly or indirectly in the factory premises for the purpose of manufacturing of final product, but Cenvat credit is not available in respect of the capital goods used outside the plant area or in an office. 3.2 Since it was found that the assessee had utilized the capital goods for construction in the area outside the plant, a show cause notice dated 5-8-2008 was issued inter alia a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no suppression of fact on their part which could justify invocation of longer period of limitation. It was fairly submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee that subsequently the issue came to be decided against them in case of Vandana Global Ltd. v. CEC [2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-L.B.)] 5. The Tribunal observed in its impugned order as under : 3. ... 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 bona fide 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
