9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment effected in Rule 2(e) of the CCRS, 2004. The demand for the longer period is set aside and the appellants are liable to reverse the CENVAT along with interest only for the normal period - penalty also set aside - appeal disposed off. - ST/2469, 2861, 2862/2011-DB; ST/22034/2014 - FINAL ORDER NO. 21532-21535/2018 - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member For the Appellant : Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate, Shri M.S. NAGARAJA, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner(AR), Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR) ORDER PER : S.S. GARG The appellants have filed these four appeals against different Orders-in-Original dt. 30/04/2011, 27/07/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roportionate to trading) Demand and period barred by limitation Rs.4,22,25,000/- (01/2005 to 09/2008 Rs.2,85,92,036/- (01/2005 to 03/2009) Rs.1,46,02,656/- (01/2005 to 03/2009) Rs.54,87,013/- (01/2010 to 09/2010) Demand and period within limitation Rs.1,45,75,000/- (10/2008 to 12/2009) Rs.69,02,941/- (04/2009 to 12/2009) Rs.47,40,938/- (04/2009 to 12/2009) Rs.18,29,005/- (10/2010 to 12/2010) Penalty Rs.5,68,00,000/- u/r 15(2) and 15(3) of CCR Rs.3,54,94,977/- u/r 15(2) and 15(3) of CCR Rs.1,93,43,59 4/- u/r 15( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g activity, were demanded along with interest and penalties were also imposed. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law as the same have been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the substantial demand in the present case is barred by limitation. He also submitted that the longer period of limitation is not invocable in the present case as the facts were within the knowledge of the Department and as such the allegation of suppression and invocation of extended period of limitation is not sustainable. He also submitted that the extended period of limitation is not invocable when an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Orion Applicances Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2010(19) STR 205 (Tri. Ahmd.)] and the said decision also noted that there is no provision for reversal of credit in the CENVAT credit Rules. Rule 2(e) was thereafter amended on 01/03/2011 to include trading as an exempted service and Rule 6 was amended incorporating the formula for providing the mechanism for reversal of credit. Further he 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 basis of which the demand has been raised and the appellant has not suppressed any facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Further the appellant in support of his submission, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as the learned AR, we find that the Department was very well aware of the trading activity carried out by the appellant because the details of trading was available in the balance sheet of the appellant during the relevant period, on the basis of which, the demand has been raised. Therefore we find that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of tax. Further we find that the period involved in all the appeals is prior to the amendment effected in Rule 2(e) of the CCRS, 2004. Further we find that an identical issue in the appellant s own case has been decided in their favour vide two Final Orders dt. 12/01/2018 and dt. 01/08/2018. Further we find that the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
