9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court for final determination - the appellant has bona fide reasons to believe that he is entitled to the CENVAT credit and he has disclosed the same in his ST-3 returns - entire demand is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - ST/495/2010-SM - Final Order No. 20047 / 2017 - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Ezhilmathi, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) whereby he has confirmed the recovery of CENVAT credit availed by appellant along with interest and also imposed penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit but there are certain decisions which are against the appellant and the matter is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court for final decision and therefore he is not arguing on merit in the present case but only confining his arguments to time bar because according to him the entire demand is time barred in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that in the present case, the show-cause notice was issued on 22.7.2008 for the period from 2004 to 2007. He further submitted that the appellant had submitted the information vide his letter dated 21.1.2008 and the credit on shelter was availed for the period from 10.9.2004 to 30.9.2006 alone. He further submitted that the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocation of extended period of limitation is not warranted. He also submitted that the instant issue has been a subject matter of dispute since the very beginning when the Board issued a circular dated 26.6.2008 directing the department to recover irregular credit availed on towers and parts thereof such as angles, channels and beams of steel, etc. but this Circular was issued after the impugned order was passed. He also submitted that in the context of the term accessory , there was plethora of decisions in favour of the appellant demonstrating that the goods in question were admissible as capital goods. Learned counsel further submitted that following decisions were against the appellant. i. Bharati Airtel Ltd. vs. CST, Pune: 2013 (29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and therefore they are liable to pay interest and penalty along with CENVAT credit. She further relied upon the various circulars issued by the Board and the judgment in the case of Bharti Airtel and Vodafone India Ltd. which are cited above to submit that on merit till today the decisions are in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. She further submitted that in the case of Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2000 (120) ELT 273 (SC), the issue has been settled in favour of the Department. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the various decisions cited at the bar. I find that though instant issue is against the appellant on merit which has been fairly conceded by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
