Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. & S.T., Panchkula vs Liberty Shoes Ltd on 28 October, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT IV
Excise Appeal No.E/50060/2015 EX. [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.355/SVS/PKL/2014 dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Delhi-III, Gurgaon]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE 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?
C.C.E. & S.T., Panchkula Appellant
Vs.
Liberty Shoes Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Smt. Kanu Verma Kumar, D.R. Present for the Respondent: Shri R.S.Sharma, Advocate Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 28.10.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. __54266/2015___ PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-III, wherein appeal of the Respondent was allowed on the ground of limitation. The grievance of Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly referred to the other show cause notice for allowing the appeal in favour of the respondent, in as much as, the issue involved in the show cause notice in question was different than that decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) on earlier occasion.
2. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
3. In response to the appeal filed by the Revenue, the submissions of the respondent are that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, holding that once a show cause notice has been issued for earlier period, the second show cause notice by invoking extended period of limitation cannot be issued and subsequent show cause notice will be barred by limitation of time.
4. It is an admitted fact that there were two show cause notices bearing Nos. 16407 dated 24.11.2011 and 16297 dated 24.11.2011 issued by the Department, covering the period from June, 2007 to March, 2008. Since, the facts involved in this case were known to the Department, through initiation of the earlier show cause proceedings, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for initiation of the present proceedings. The proposed demand should be confined to the normal period of one year.
5. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal filed by Revenue.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 3