Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Skn Industries Ltd. (Unit-Ii) vs Cce, Delhi -Iii on 3 July, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 COURT NO.1 Appeal No.E/245/2009-SM [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 242/ANS/GGN/2008 dt. 30.10.2008 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi-III] Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.06.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, 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? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? Yes SKN Industries Ltd. (Unit-II) Appellant Vs. CCE, Delhi -III Respondent
Appearance:
Shri N.L. Jangir, Advocate for the appellant Shri Harvinder Singh, A.R. for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO 60207/2016 Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying cenvat credit avail on stock at the time of registration with the department on 20.02.2002.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was working since 1999, but they took registration with the department under the Central Excise Act on 20.02.2002 and availed Cenvat Credit on capital goods, work in progress and inputs lying in the stock as on the said date. Audit took place and a show cause notice was issued on 19-03-2007 by invoking extended period of limitation on the ground during the relevant time, the appellant did not file declaration under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, they are not entitled to avail cenvat credit on capital goods, work in progress and inputs lying in the stock credit on 20.02.2002. In that circumstance, the adjudication order was passed by denying the credit to the appellant, consequently, confirmed demand of duty alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that after registration with the department, the appellant is regularly filing their ER-1 return showing the credit availed on 20.02.2002. Therefore, the fact of availment of credit was in the knowledge of department. In that circumstance, the show cause notice dated 19.03.2007 is barred by limitation. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. supported the impugned order.
5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
6. Considering the fact that the appellant was filing regular ER-1 return showing the availment of cenvat credit on capital goods, work in progress and inputs lying in the stock credit on 20.02.2002 and and no objection was noised at the relevant time by the revenue. In that circumstance, the show cause notice dated 19.03.2007 is barred by limitation.
7. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) ras 1