Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Real Ispat & Power Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 24 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 24.4.2014
Appeal No. E/3625/2012-EX(SM)
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 127/RPR-I/2012 dated 9.8.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Raipur)
For Approval & signature :
Honble Ms. 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?
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 their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s Real Ispat & Power Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Raipur Respondent
Appearance Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate - for the appellant Shri B.B. Sharma, A.R. - for the respondent CORAM:Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.51804/2014 Per Archana Wadhwa :
Demand of Rs.5,10,306/- stands confirmed against the appellant by denying them the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of the goods during the period April 2009 to November 2009 as also on the ground that they have availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on various iron and steel items, during the period 2008-2009, used as supporting structures.
2. The appellant is contesting the demand on limitation inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 17.2.2011. During the relevant period there were decisions in favour of the assessee on both the issues, thus leading to a bona fide belief on their part that the Cenvat credit is admissible. The law was changed only subsequently. Further the entire credit was availed after reflecting the same in the statutory Cenvat credit records.
3. The Tribunal in a number of decisions has considered an identical situation and has held as under :-
(1) ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE 2009 (15) STR 23 (Tri.-LB) (2) CCE, Belgaum Vs. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. 2011 (24) STR 542 (Kar.).
(3) CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 406 (Kar.).
4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned demand on the point of limitation and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) RM 2