Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Swarup Casting Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E., Meerut-I on 28 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 28.03.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal Nos. E/3951 & 3952/2012-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.276&278-CE/MRT-I/2012, dated 24.09.2012 & 25.09.2012, passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Meerut-I]
M/s. Swarup Casting Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Meerut-I Respondents
Appearance Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate - for the Appellants Shri RK Mishra, DR - for the Respondents CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order Nos. 51378-51379, dated 28.03.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical, i.e., the availability of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of their final product. In Appeal No.E/3952/2012, the period involved is 2007-08, whereas the Show Cause Notice stands issued on 19.01.2011. In Appeal No.E/3951/2012, the period is from 2007-08 to 2008-09, whereas the Show Cause Notice issued on 17.03.2011. As such, it is seen that in both the cases, the demands stand confirmed by invoking the longer period of limitation. In fact, the period involved in Appeal No.E/3951/2012 is over-lapping the period involved in Appeal No.E/3952/2012.
2. Apart from the fact, I find that the issue is covered in favour of the appellants by the decisions of Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE&ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)] and Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2009 (14) STR 3 (P&H)], the demand is squarely barred by limitation. It stands held in many decisions that when the decisions are before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and there are various views of higher judicial forum, no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee, so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation.
3. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Dictated and pronounced in Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-