9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Credit on these items in the manufacture in the present proceedings was disputable and different opinions were given by CESTAT and Courts, extended period of limitation for demanding duty is not applicable. Appellant has correctly relied upon the judgment of Megafine Pharma Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Daman (2014 (7) TMI 982 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) to argue that the extended period is not invokable. - extended period cannot be invoked in situations for an earlier period where a part of dispute is subsequently decided by the Larger Bench of the CESTAT. The very fact that the issue is decided in 2010 by Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd Vs CCE Raipur (supra) clearly convey that there was a confusion in the mind of the manufacturers regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd [2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC)]. Learned Advocate also argued that the amendment carried out in Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, effective from 07.07.2009, is not retrospective as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd Vs CCE & C [2015-TIOL-1288-High Court-AHM-ST]. The learned Advocate further argued that the entire demand pertains to the period 2005-2009 and the show cause notice was issued after a period of one year on 03.06.2010 and is clearly time barred because of the law settled only by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd Vs CCE Raipur delivered in 2010. It was his ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case law, published in 2010, it was held that the CENVAT Credit on inputs used in the making of support structures for capital goods is not admissible. As the issue of admissibility of CENVAT Credit on these items in the manufacture in the present proceedings was disputable and different opinions were given by CESTAT and Courts, extended period of limitation for demanding duty is not applicable. Appellant has correctly relied upon the judgment of Megafine Pharma Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Daman (supra) to argue that the extended period is not invokable. In this regard, Para 4 of this case law relied upon by the Appellant is reproduced below:- "4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from the annexure to the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of dispute is subsequently decided by the Larger Bench of the CESTAT. The very fact that the issue is decided in 2010 by Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd Vs CCE Raipur (supra) clearly convey that there was a confusion in the mind of the manufacturers regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on disputed items. 5. In view of the above factual matrix, it cannot be held that the Appellant had any intention to evade payment of duty and accordingly, the extended period is not invokable. 6. In the present appeal, the period of demand is from 2005 to 2009 and the show cause notice was issued on 03.06.2010. The appeal filed by the Appellant is, therefore, required to be allowed on time bar. This Bench is not expressing any view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
