9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed the penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Act on the ground that there is no time limit prescribed for the lack of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The authorities have intentionally dragged the appellant into litigation by issuance of the show cause notice after the lapse of five years, the action of the authorities below cannot be appreciated which cause harm to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat credit thereon, after putting to capital goods in use for 3-4 years, the capital goods were transferred to the assessee without payment of duty later on, in case of January 2007. Later on, on pointing out by the Revenue the appellant paid duty on the said capital goods in terms of Rule 3(5) of Central Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest, thereafter, on 31.01.2013 a show cause notice was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AC of the Act on the ground that there is no time limit prescribed for the lack of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Hari Concast (P) Ltd. reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. 12 (P H) has held that for imposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, the maximum period is five years but both the authorities did not follow the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, the authorities have intentionally dragged the appellant into litigation by issuance of the show cause notice after the lapse of five years, the action of the authorities below cannot be appreciated which cause harm to the industry. As on merits, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal), held that the duty along with interest cannot be demanded as barred by limitation, therefore, no penalty is imposable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
