2017 (4) TMI 743

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to 01.04.2011. The issue being interpretational, the appellants cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax - extended period not invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/25698/2013 - Final Order No. 30489/2017 - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member(Judicial) Shri Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the appellant Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the respondent ORDER [ Order Per Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. The above appeal is filed against the demand confirmed alleging that common input services were used for manufacturing activity as well as trading activity. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of cement and clinkers. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2017-TIOL-353-CESTAT-Mum (b) Marudhan Motors Vs. CCE ST, Jaipur 2016-TIOL-2576-CESTAT-Del. (c) TFL Quinn India Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Hyderabad 2016-TIOL-856-Cestat, Hyd. (d) Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune 2016-TIOL-105-HC-Mum-CX 4. The Ld. Counsel strongly submitted that the demand is barred by limitation since the unit of appellant was audited every year which is evident from the records. The issue involved is only interpretation of legal provisions and the credit was availed on common input services only on bonafide belief and credit is admissible. He also relied upon the judgement in the case of Pragathi Concrete Products Vs. UOI 2015(322)E.L.T 819(S.C). 5. On behalf of the department, L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me appears to have been rejected but in the same paragraph it is held that Rules are delegated legislation and the Government has no power to amend them with retrospective effect. To that extent, the Tribunal agrees with the Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. From there onwards and then in paragraph 15, at page 99 of paper-book, the Tribunal holds that changes made by the Explanation are substantive. The Explanations have been made in Rules by a Notification without giving retrospective effect and though the same was issued on Ist March, 2011, it came into force on Ist April 2011. Thus, it cannot have retrospective effect. 7. In the case of TFL Quinn India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that since the is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X