9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - time limitation - Held that:- The appellant being the public sector undertaking cannot be saddled with any malafide suppression or mis-statement, with intent to evade the payment of duty. In any case the credit required to be reversed by the Appellant was available as credit to their sister units, who could be utilise the same for the payment of duty of excise. Thus leading to a Revenue neutral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011, excise duty was levied on their final product i.e. Coal. During the period April, 2011 to 21/06/2012, the appellant availed the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various inputs which were subsequently cleared "as such" to their sister unit located at Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In as much as the credit availed by the appellant was not reversed by them in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit and transferred the inputs to their sister units, who had utilised the same for manufacture of their final product, which was leviable to duty of excise. As such he submits that duty required to be paid by them was available as Credit to their sister units and the entire exercise was Revenue neutral. In such a scenario no malafide can be attributed to them so as to justifiably invoke the longe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l can be disposed of on account of limitation. The appellant being the public sector undertaking cannot be saddled with any malafide suppression or mis-statement, with intent to evade the payment of duty. In any case the credit required to be reversed by the Appellant was available as credit to their sister units, who could be utilise the same for the payment of duty of excise. Thus leading to a R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of C.EX., Nagpur- 2018(11) G.S.T.L. 344 Bom) and Gujrat High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of C.EX. & CUS., Vadodara-II vs. Indeos ABS Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj) and Tribunal decisions in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Special Steel Ltd. 2015 (329) ELT 449( Tri.-Mumbai) & Sarover Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Serive Tax, Mumbai, 2018(10) GSTL 72(Tri- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
