Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Thaker Engg. Co Pvt Ltd vs Cce & C. Anand on 13 October, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : E/11444-11445/2017 (Arising out of OIA No. VAD-EXCUS-003-APP-538-539-2016-17 dated 28/01/2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vadodara-I) 1. M/s Thaker Engg. Co Pvt Ltd 2. Shri Bharat B Thaker : Appellant (s) Vs CCE & C. Anand : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri Anish Goyal, CA For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, AR CORAM :
Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing:09.10.2017 Date of Decision: 13.10.2017 ORDER No. A/12970-12971/2017 Per : Mr. M. V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed against same Orders-in-appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-003-APP-538-539-2016-17 dated 28/01/2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding confirmation of the demand of ineligible Cenvat credit availed by the appellants after the date of issuance of Notification No. 21/2014-CE(NT) dated 17.07.2014 (w.e.f. 01.09.2014). Appellant had availed the Cenvat credit involved in period April 2010 to April 2014 on 31.08.2014, in order to, by pass the time restrictions put up by Notification No. 21/2014-CE(NT).
4. On merits, I find that the appellant has no case, as post issuance of the Notification, he could not have availed the Cenvat credit on the invoices after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of the invoices.
5. However, on limitation, I do find that appellant has got a good case it is brought to my notice that after availing the Cenvat credit on the invoices issued during the period in question, appellant vide letter dated 26.09.2014 filed revised monthly returns for the month of August 2014 in duplicate alongwith all the supporting statements and copy of RG-23 Part II. The said letter is reproduced below:-
It can be seen that the above said letter is received and acknowledged by the Revenue on 29.09.2014. Despite such categorical averment, the Revenue authorities issued show cause notice to appellant on 27.07.2016, which is blatantly time barred. The said show cause notice invokes the extended period by stating that there was suppression and misstatement of the facts, with intention to evade payment of duty and both the lower authorities have held so, which is an in incorrect appreciation of the fact in the case in hand on the factual matrix when the letter dated 26.09.2014 was informing the department in detail action.
6. In view of fore-going, I hold that the impugned order that confirmed the demand of the duty with interest and imposing penalties is unsustainable and liable to set-aside and I do so, on limitation.
7. The impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals are rejected.
(Order pronounced on 13.10.2017) (M. V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) G.Y. 3 Appeal No. E/11444-11445/2017