9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - demand being time barred is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21727/2014-SM - Final Order No. 21994/2017 - Dated:- 24-5-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Cherian Punnoose, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of cenvat credit and has further held that the appellant is liable to pay interest but the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the penalty under Section 77 and 78 by hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the factual and legal position and by ignoring the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the demand of cenvat credit confirmed pertains to the period April 2006 to September 2006 and the show-cause notice demanding the same was issued on 19.04.2011 and therefore, the entire demand in the present case is beyond the normal period of limitation. He further submitted that the allegation in the show-cause notice for invoking the longer period of limitation was that the appellant suppressed the facts and contravened the provisions of Act/Rules with intent to avail and utilize the ineligible credit and the original authority in his order has held that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -CESTAT New Delhi 4.1. He further submitted that a longer period of limitation cannot be invoked against the Public Sector Undertaking and for this he relied upon the following decisions: a) CCE, Allahabad Vs, Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd, - 2014 (36) STR 554 (Tri. -Del.) b) BSNL Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2009 (14) STR 359 (Tri. -Ahmd.) 5. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that the demand in this case pertains to the period April 2006 to September 2006 and the show-cause notice was issued only on 19.04.2011 by invoking extended period of limitation by alleging suppression of facts. Further I also find that as fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
