Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Vardhman Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 60420 of 2013 Ex[SM]
Excise Stay Application No. 61479 of 2013 Ex[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. JAL-EXCUS-000-Appl-077-13-14 dated 21.8.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh II]
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. Vardhman Industries Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent,
Chandigarh II Appearance:
Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate for the Appellants-assessee Ms. S Sharma, DR for the Respondent Revenue Date of Hearing /decision: 28.1.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ A 50516 /2014-Ex(SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
As the appellant has deposited the entire duty demand of Rs.47,661/- along with interest, I dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty and proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the disputed issue stands covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal.
2. The said demands stand confirmed against the applicant- appellant by denying the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the various iron and steel items on the ground that they are used as supporting structurals, in which case they are not entitled to avail the credit in terms of law declared by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. [2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri-LB)]. The said demand pertains to the period from December, 2010 to April, 2011 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 22.8.2012.
3. Though the appellant have disputed the fact that said items were used as supporting structurals inasmuch as it is their stand that they are used for repair and maintenance, I find, without going into the said contentious issue, the appeal can be disposed of on the point of limitation itself. Admittedly, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. Various decision of the Tribunal prior to Vandana Global were in favour of the assessee. Tribunal has, in the precedent decisions has already held that in such a scenario, no mis-statement or willful suppression can be attributed to the assessee so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. One such reference can be made to the Tribunals decision in the case of High Tea Equipment and require Final order No. A/58186 /2013 SM (Br) dated 5.11.2013. By following the same, I set aside the demand as barred by limitation and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
4. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
3