9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit entries and the cenvatable documents were available with the Respondents which were examined by Internal Audit parties but only Local Audit party could raise the objection. In the above factual matrix of the facts extended period cannot be made applicable to the present case - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. : E/270/2008 - ORDER No. A/11870/2014 - Dated:- 31-10-2014 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For the Appellant : Shri J Nair (AR) For the Respondent :Shrui P P Jadeja (Adv.) JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. H K Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order passed by Commn (A), Ahmedabad as per OIA No 319/AI/2007(Ahmd-I) dt 27/12/2007. Under this OIA dt 27.12.2007 first appellate authority has allowed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and credit taking documents has been correctly maintained by the Respondent and were always available for inspection. ii) That no objection was raised by the internal audit parties of the department as matter was only taken up by Local Audit party. iii) That Supreme Court in the case of HMM Ltd [1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC)] has held the Revenue must allege elements like suppression of facts with intention to evade duty while invoking extended period of limitations. That Apex court again in the case of Continental Foundation Jt Venture vs CCE Chandigarh [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)] has held that mere omission to give correct information was not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to evade the payments of duty. That i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007(217)ELT 457 (Tri.Delhi)] vi) That in view of the above legal proposition extended period cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and Revenues appeal required to be rejected. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records including the written submissions made by the Respondent. As per the facts stated in the OIO No 13/Addl,Com/2007 dt 15/6/2007 the issue involved was use of certain items for erecting structure of plant and machinery. In reply to the show cause notice and during the course of personal hearing it was argued by the Respondent that it is a settled legal position that goods used in relation to manufacture and erection of plant and machinery were capital goods covered under the cenvat sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts whether crushing of bigger stones or boulders into smaller pieces amounts to manufacture. Accordingly, there was bona fide doubt as to whether or not such an activity could attract the payment of duty and the dealer-respondent did not apply for licence. Once the aforesaid factual position is clear then the judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court in Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (supra) would fully apply to the case in hand. The view of Hon ble the Supreme Court as correctly quoted by the Tribunal reads thus :- In this case, there was a divergent view of the various High Courts whether crushing of bigger stones or boulders into smaller pieces amounts to manufacture. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
