Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Annapurna Industries Pvt Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I on 26 December, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : E/283/2011 (Arising out of OIA-RKA/11&20-22/SRT-I/2011 dated 20/01/2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I) M/s Annapurna Industries Pvt Ltd. : Appellant (s) Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Sameer Chitkara, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble 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?
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 CORAM :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 26.12.2016 ORDER No. A/11889 / 2016 dated 26.12.2016 Per : Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides.
2. This is an appeal filed against OIA No. RKA/11&20-22/SRT-I/2011 dated 20/01/2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I. The appellants is in appeal against confirmation of the demand notice dated 20.02.2009 for the credit availed during the period February 2004 to July 2004 as well as imposition of penalty.
3. It is fairly agreed that the demand is confirmed invoking extended period of limitation and the issue on merit is covered in favour of the Revenue but on limitation in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prayagraj Dyg. & Ptg .Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI 2013 (290) ELT 61(Guj).
4. Undisputedly the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Prayagraj Dyg & Ptg Mills case(supra) and the demand had been confirmed for extended period of limitation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court) (D. M. Misra) Member (Judicial) G.Y. ??
??
??
??
2