Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Tricolite Electrical Industries vs Commissioner Of Customs on 11 December, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. E/53177/2015-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. DEL-EXCUS-APP-001-63-64-2015 dated 22.05.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I) New Delhi]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Tricolite Electrical Industries ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs Respondent(s)
New Delhi - I Appearance:
Mr. R. N. Saxena (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. Vaibhav Bhatnagar DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 11.12.2015 Final Order No. 54126 /2015_ Per S. K. Mohanty:
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise (New Delhi), upholding cenvat demand confirmed under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the adjudication order.
2. Sh. R. N. Saxena, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the period of dispute in this case is March 2010 and the SCN was issued to the appellant, seeking recovery of cenvat credit on 10.10.2013. Thus, according to the appellant, the SCN is barred by limitation of time as per Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Sh. Vaibhav Bhatnagar, the Ld. DR appearing for the Respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
5. During the month of March 2010, the appellant had cleared the finished goods i.e. Water Pump Panel and Fire Pump Panel to M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) at nil rate of duty in terms of exemption notification No. 6/06 dated 1.3.2006. For non-observance of the procedures laid down in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Department initiated proceedings against the appellant for payment of amount equal to the exempted goods cleared to M/s DMRC. I find that in the ER-1 return for the month of March 2010, the appellant had indicated the detail of supply of goods to M/s DMRC which is evident from the SCN itself. The relevant paragraph in the SCN is extracted herein below.
6. Whereas during the preliminary scrutiny of the ER-1 return filed by the party under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the month of March, 2010 (RUD-4) it was observed that the party had cleared the finished goods i.e. Water Pump Panel and Fire Pumps Panel against the above said DMRC exemption certificate at nil rate of duty without following the procedure laid down under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 i.e. without reversing an amount equal to 5% of the value of Rs. 4,31,000/- of the exempted goods.
6. Since ER-1 Return for the month of March, 2010 was filed in the month of April 2010, the SCN should have been issued within a period of one year from such relevant date. Since, in the present case, the SCN was issued on 10.10.2013, which is beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 11A, I am of the considered view that the proceedings are clearly barred by limitation of time. Further, I find from the SCN that the Proviso to Section 11A has not been invoked therein, which shows that the Department is satisfied that the appellant is not indulged in any activities such as suppression, fraud, collusion etc., with intent to evade payment of duty. In view of above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal only on the ground of limitation.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 3 | Page E/53177/2015-E[SM]