Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Raipur vs Shree Shyam Sponge & Power Ltd on 29 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT III
Excise Appeal No.E/3086/2012- EX [SM] with
C.O. No.4438/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.116/RPR-I/2012 dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Raipur]
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?8
C.C.E., Raipur Appellant
Vs.
Shree Shyam Sponge & Power Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Mr.R.K.Mishra, D.R. Present for the Respondent: Ms.Aastha Gupta, Advocate Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 29/11/2016 FINAL ORDER NO. _55983/2016__ PER: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. Duty demand of Rs.40,53,889/- dropped by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has been assailed by Revenue on the ground that respondent had suppressed the facts regarding use of the structural steel items within the factory for fabrication of the capital goods, and thus, allowing the appeal by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on limitation ground is not proper and justified.
3. I find that in arriving at the conclusion that suppression of fact cannot be levelled against the respondent, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has recorded the following findings:-
Para-6.5 As regards the extended time-limit, I find that there was no finding on suppression of any relevant fact. In fact, it is a case of difference in interpretation as can be seen from the fact that the original authority agreed with the views of the appellants. Therefore on limitation, the appeal of the appellant succeeds.
4. On the basis of available records, since the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in absence of suppression of facts, the case of the appellant should succeed on the ground of limitation, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
[Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court] (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 2