Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. K.M.Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 1100 of 2011-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 5/CE/ALLD/2011 dated 31.01.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. K.M.Sugar Mills Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Sukiriti Dass, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R.K.Mishra, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 25.04.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ 51890 /2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
Cenvat credit of Rs. 8,84,975/- stand denied to the appellant availed by them in respect of various iron and steel items. Though the appellant have contended that the said iron and steel items were used in the fabrication of capital goods, I find that appeal can be disposed of on the point of limitation.
2. The period involved in the present appeal is from April, 2005 to December, 2005 and the show cause notice stand issued on 19.11.2008, by invoking the longer period of limitation. Admittedly, during the period involved, there were Tribunals decision in favour of the assessee and law was reversed only with Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. reported as [2010 (253) ELT 440 (LB)].
3. In the case of similar situate appellants, involving the same issue Tribunal in number of decisions has held that inasmuch as during the relevant period, the law was declared in favour of the assessee, and was reversed only subsequently , no malafide can be attributed to the manufacturer assessee so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. Reference can be made to the following decisions:
1) Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)]
2) Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC)]
3) M/s. High Tech Equipments & Spares Pvt. Ltd.
Final Order No. A/58186/2013-SM[BR] dated 05.11.2013
4) CCE, Raipur v. Baldev Alloys Pvt. Ltd [2012-TIOL-388-CESTAT-DEL]
5) CCE, Raipur v. Orion Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
[2010 (259) ELT 84 (Tri.)]
6) CCE, Raipur v. Rajaram Maize Products [2010 (258) ELT 539 (Tri.)]
4. Inasmuch as the demands in the present appeal is admittedly beyond limitation, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal on the said ground.
(Pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
3