9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/43/2000 - Final Order No. A/30492/2016 - Dated:- 18-5-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri V.J. Shankarm, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.R. Bager, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeal was remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide judgment dated 20.02.2013. The Hon'ble Court directed to consider afresh all issues raised by appellant including the issue of limitation. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Mild Steel Ingots (MS Ingots), steel runners etc. The period involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipted documents had to scrutinize each MODVAT document enclosed to RT-12 return to satisfy the eligibility of credit and accordingly had to deface the documents. The documents objected to by department as not eligible for taking credit were thus approved by the Range Superintendent by defacing them. The department was aware that the documents were signed by consignment agent. That therefore, the show cause notice dated 07.10.1994 is hit by the bar of limitation, as the notice period during the material time was 6 months. 5. The learned AR, Shri R.R. Bager supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the challans are seen issued by consignment agent and therefore cannot be considered as challans issued by TISCO. Thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that appellant is guilty of suppression of facts. The appellant had disclosed the details of credit availed in the RT-12 returns and necessary documents were also filed. On this score, the allegation that appellant has committed suppression of facts is baseless. The show cause notice issued raising the demand beyond the normal period of six months is therefore unsustainable. In view therefore, we hold that the demand is time barred. The issue of limitation is answered in favor of the appellant/assessee. The issue of limitation having been answered in favor of assessee we do not think it necessary to enter into the merits of the case. In arriving at the above conclusion we draw sustenance from the decision of Tribunal in M/s Nirma Ltd Vs CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
