Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. K M Sugar Mills Ltd vs Cce & St, Allahabad on 21 November, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 52101 of 2014
Excise Stay Application No. 52608 / 2014
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MP /DEM-13/2012 (14/2013) dated 24.12.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Allahabad ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
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?
No
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
M/s. K M Sugar Mills Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE & ST, Allahabad Respondent
Appearance:
Ms Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing /Decision : 21.11.2014 ORDER NO . FO/ 54636 /2014-Ex(Br) Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, we proceed to decide the appeal itself. Admittedly the demand is barred by limitation which issue stand decided by various precedent decisions.
2. The demand stand raised for the period February, 2007 to December 2007 by way of issuance of show cause notice in March, 2012, by denying the Cenvat credit of duty paid on various iron and steel items on the allegations and finding that the same has been used as structurals in which case the credit would not be available in terms of law declared by the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. [2010 ELT (253) 440(LB)] .
3. Identical issues stand decided by the Tribunal in number of decisions and it stand held that inasmuch as law was declared subsequently, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant for the purpose of alleging suppression and for invoking the longer period of limitation. Some reference can be made to the Tribunals decision in the case of
1) Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)]
2) Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC)]
3) M/s. High Tech Equipments & Spares Pvt. Ltd.
Final Order No. A/58186/2013-SM[BR] dated 05.11.2013
4) CCE, Raipur v. Baldev Alloys Pvt. Ltd [2012-TIOL-388-CESTAT-DEL]
5) CCE, Raipur v. Orion Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
[2010 (259) ELT 84 (Tri.)]
6) CCE, Raipur v. Rajaram Maize Products [2010 (258) ELT 539 (Tri.)]
4. Inasmuch as the entire demand is barred by limitation, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
5. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court)
( Archana Wadhwa) Member(Judicial)
( Rakesh Kuma)
Member(Technical)
ss
??
??
??
??
2