9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat: - the methodology followed by the assessee was in the knowledge of the Department but in spite of that Department did not issue the show-cause notice which was finally issued on 04.11.2010 for the period 2004 to 2007 - the entire demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/25159/2013-SM - Final Order No. 20517/2018 - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Arun Kurian Joseph, Advocate- For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Assistant Commissioner Smt. Kavitha Poduwal, AR- For the Respondent Order Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the demand of interest thereon. The original authority has also imposed a penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the entire demand is barred by limitation. He further submitted that on merit, he is not contesting the case in view of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE ST, Bangalore Vs. Suprajit Engineering Ltd. reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 369 (Kar.) wherein the Hon'ble Karna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has indulged in suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax. Further in the case of CCE Vs. Softex reported in 2007 (209) ELT 9 (S.C) it has been held that it was evident from the reading of the same that the facts were already in the knowledge of the Revenue and in those circumstances, the Revenue cannot invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the method adopted by the appellant during the relevant time was in accordance with the orders of the Tribunal prevalent during the relevant period showing that the appellant acted under a bona fide belief and is not guilty of suppression. Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat credit and the appellant had a bona fide belief that he is entitled to take the cenvat credit as well as depreciation. Further finally the Karnataka High Court in the case of Supraiit Enqineerinq (supra) held that the appellant cannot take cenvat credit as well as depreciation. Further I find in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Terene Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. and GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra wherein it has been held that when the facts are in the knowledge of the Department then suppression cannot be alleged. In the present case also I find that the methodology followed by the assessee was in the knowledge of the Department but in spite of that Department did not issue the show-cause notice which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
