9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued show cause notices for the earlier period - entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal(s) Involved: ST [21224/2017-SM, ST/21231/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20056-20057 2018 - Dated:- 12-1-2018 - SHRI SS GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, For The Appellant Ms.Kavitha Podwal, Supdt.(Ar), For The Respondent Per: S.S GARG Appellant has filed these two appeals against the common impugned order dt 1 1/05/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) partly allowed the appeals of the appellant and confirmed the demands of ₹ 6,56,679/- and ₹ 42,63,707/an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under chapter 85 of CETA 1985 They are engaged in providing various taxable output services as defined under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 such as intellectual property sight service, management, maintenance and repair service, online information and data retrieval services, business auxiliary services, technical inspection certification services, commercial training coaching services, erection, commissioning installation services. Both the units of the appellant, apart from the activity of manufacturing and providing taxable output services, are also engaged in trading activities. They availed CENVAT credit on certain common input services which were also used and utilized for their trading activity also. It appeared tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices to various units of the appellant were issued for the period 2005-2009 and against those show-cause notices appeals were filed before the Hon'ble CESTAT and he has given the details of those show-cause notice which are given herein below: - SCN dt. Unit Demand Period Status 23/04/2010 Khaneja Rs.5,68,00,000/- 2005-09 Appeal No.ST/2469/2011 pending before CESTAT, Bangalore 11/10/2010 peenya Rs.1,93,43,594/- 2005-09 Appeal No. ST/2862/201 1 pending before CESTAT, Bangalore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15(324) ELT 8 (SC)] ii. ECE Industries Ltd. vs. CCE [2004(164) ELT 236 (SC)] iii. Nizam sugar Factory [2006(197) ELT 465 (SC)] 7. He also submitted that longer period of limitation is not invokcabe in the present case as the issue relates to interpretation of law. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: - i.TFL Quinn India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2016-TlOL-856-CESTAT-HYD] ii. Krishna Auto Sales vs. CCE [2015(40) STR 1 121 (Tri. Del.)] iii. CCE vs. Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2015(37) STR 241 (Tri, Mum.)] 8. He also submitted that longer period of limitation is not invocable as the details of trading was available in the balance sheet of the appellant during the relevant period on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Central Excise reported in [2003 (2) SCALE 390], the question was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the Department has earlier issued show cause notices in respect of the same subject-matter. It has been held that in such circumstances, it could not be said that there was any wilful suppression or misstatement and that therefore, the extended period under Section 1 IA could not be invoked. 5. In our view, the principles laid down in above case fully apply here. As earlier proceedings in respect of same subject matter were pending adjudication it could not be said that there was any suppression and the extended period under Section 1 IA was not available. 6. To this extent the impugned judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, all relevant facts were within the knowledge notice of the Department. Not only' this, after the appellant had filed the reply to the said Show Cause Notice and was heard in the matter, the proposed move in the said Show Cause Notice was even dropped. 4. therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, the appellant can be treated as a person who had misled the authorities or made any misstatement/misdeclaration. the appeal is allowed on this ground itself without going into the Issue of classification setting Aside the impugned order. As a result, the impugned order passed by the authorities below arc set aside. 14. In view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court holding that longer period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
