9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to evade duty or take wrong CENVAT credit deliberately. Accordingly, it is held that extended period is not invokable in these proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Application No : E/ORS/16620/2014, (E/ROM/10314/2015) & Appeal No.: E/362/2008 - Order No. M/11114-11115/2015 - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri S. R. Dixit, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. Shukla, AR ORDER Per: H.K. Thakur This ROM has been filed by the appellant with respect to order No. A/11858/2014 Dated 30.10.2014 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. E/362/2008-SM. Revenue also filed ROM against the same order that this Bench has upheld demand for extended period but wrongly set-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectification by giving suitable observations on time barred nature of demand. 4.1 It is observed that this Bench in the last few lines of Para 9 of order Dated 30.10.2014 held as follows regarding non imposition of penalties:- 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that the appellant is not contesting this factual matrix as to the payment of Service Tax liability was in respect of the goods which were cleared and exported prior to 10.09.2004. The findings of the first appellate authority are correct to that extent as the services rendered by commission agent were completed prior to 10.09.2004. The invoices raised by the commission agent in January 2005 and March 2005 may not carry any further the case of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention to evade duty or take wrong CENVAT credit deliberately. Accordingly, it is held that extended period is not invokable in these proceedings. Period involved in this case from 07.07.2004 to 09.09.2004 and CENVAT credit was taken in March 2005. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.06.2007 which is not within one year normal period of limitation. The demand is time barred. Similar view was taken by CESTAT Bangalore, under similar facts, in the case of AARPEE Electricals (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore (Supra). 5. In view of the above observations ROM filed by the appellant is allowed and ROM filed by the Revenue is rejected because on merits this bench cannot review its own orders. (Operative portion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
