9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t facts are in the knowledge of the authorities when the first SCN was issued, the allegation of suppression of facts on the part of the assessee cannot be accepted. N/N. 3/2011 (NT) dated 01.03.2011 - exempted services - trading goods - Held that: - the demand of Input Service Credit for the normal period of limitation would be applicable. The SCN dated 05.07.2011 was issued for the period from June 2010 to March 2011 - in the present case, there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty or collusion etc. and therefore the demand of duty for the normal period of limitation is to be invoked. Penalty - Held that: - There is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore imposition of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007-08 to 2010-11. (iv) By Order dated 19.10.2012, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata VII Commissionerate adjudicated the proceedings initiated by Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2012 and dropped the entire proceedings on the ground that the demand is barred by extended period of limitation. (v) Revenue filed this appeal No. E/72062 /2013 against which the Assessee filed Cross Objection No.CO/70386/13. (vi) The Adjudicating authority by Order dated 04.06.2013 adjudicated the proceeding against Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2011 and disallowed the Input Service Credit of ₹ 4,00,523.00 along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit. By the impugned Order dated 22.11.2016, the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Commissioner of Central Excise rightly dropped the demand as time barred. He relied upon the following decisions : a) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise A.P. : 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) b) Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited Vs. Union of India 2011 (269) ELT 159 (Guj) 5. The Learned A/R for the Revenue submitted with regard to the appeal filed by the Revenue that the assessee had not submitted the facts and figures to the department and therefore extended period of limitation would be invoked. In respect of the appeal filed by the assessee, the Learned A/R for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. In respect of Appeal No. E/72062/13 CO/70386/13, I find that a Show Cause Notice da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the purported Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2012 was issued on verification of Service Tax on advertisement ledger account and the statement of summary of trading sales. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (Supra) observed that when all the relevant facts are in the knowledge of the authorities when the first Show Cause Notice was issued, the allegation of suppression of facts on the part of the assessee cannot be accepted. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below : 9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s recorded. However, though there is a reference to visit by the central excise officers to the factory of the petitioners, the date of such visit has not been mentioned. However, the statements of the authorized signatory have been recorded on 17-1-2000 and 23-3-2000, statement of the President (Works) of the Unit No. 1 had been recorded on 21-3-2000 and 24-5-2000 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and statement of the Director had been recorded on 19-12-2000. In this regard, it may be pertinent to note that the earlier show cause notices came to be issued on 4-5-2000, 12-1-2001 and 26-6-2001, that is after most of the statements were recorded and as such, the reference to intelligence in the impugned show cause notices is of no co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned above I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). 10. In respect of Appeal No. E/75283/17, by inserting the explanation by Notification No. 3/2011 (NT) dated 01.03.2011, in the definition of Exempted Service, it includes Trading goods , I am unable to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel of the Assessee that it would be effective from 01.04.2011. In my considered view, the demand of Input Service Credit for the normal period of limitation would be applicable. The Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2011 was issued for the period from June 2010 to March 2011. Section 11A of the Central Excise Act provides recovery of duties not levied or not paid etc. Sub Section (1) of the Act 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
