9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal held that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of time bar. Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- The appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of revenue neutrality. The demand for differential duty on merit upheld - the demand for duty beyond the normal time limit set aside - penalties set aside - Appeal allowed in part. - Ex. Appeal No.161, 162/2009 - FINAL ORDER NO.75440-75441/2019 - Dated:- 28-3-2019 - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR.V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Arvind Baheti, C.A. for the Appellant Shri D. K. Achariaya, Spl. Counsel for the Respondent ORDER PER V. PADMANABHAN: The appellant en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri D.K.Achariya, ld.Spl.Counsel on behalf of Revenue. 3. The ld.C.A. on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue involved in the present appeals is decided against the appellant by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCEx., Bhubaneswar II Vs. IFGL Refractories Ltd. reported in 2005 (186) ELT 529 (S.C.). However, he submitted that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of bonafide belief. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Haldia Petrochemicals Vs. CCEx., Haldia vide Final Order No.FO/77096/2018 dated 14.12.2018. The Tribunal, in this case, restricted the demand for differential duty to the normal time limit. The ld. C.A. further submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of IFGL Refractories Ltd. (supra) has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue and the observations of the Apex Court are reproduced below for ready reference : 9. Ultimately it was agreed that M/s. Visakhapatnam will surrender its Advance Licences and in lieu thereof the Respondents get the Advance Intermediate Licences. Thus, without the Advance Licences of M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, being made available to the Respondents, the prices would have been as were quoted earlier. It is only because of the Advance Licences being surrendered by M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and in lieu thereof Advance Intermediate Licences being made available to the Respondents t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here parties take advantage of policies of the Government and the benefits flowing therefrom, then such benefit cannot be said to be an additional consideration. The Apex Court s decision was further followed by this Tribunal in the case of Haldia Petrochemicals (supra). Further, in the Haldia Petrochemicals case, the Tribunal held that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of time bar. The observations of the Tribunal in the Haldia Petrochemicals case are reproduced below : 10. The appellant has also submitted arguments on the grounds of time bar. The show cause notice dated 24.10.2007 has raised the demand for the period November, 2002 to June, 2007; clearly the demand involves extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue neutrality by placing reliance on the Three-Member decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that the plea of revenue neutrality comes into play when differential duty paid by one unit is available immediately as Cenvat credit to the same unit or to another unit of the same manufacturer or its sister unit. In the present case that is not so. We find that the machines have been supplied to another customer M/s. Bajaj Auto. It may well be that the differential duty, when paid, is also available to the customer. However, on such a plea the demand itself cannot be set aside. 9. By taking note of the observations to the Tribunal in the above case, we are of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
