Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cadila Pharmaceuticals vs C.C.E., Ahmedabad Ii on 30 January, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.1619, 1620 of 2009-SM Arising out of the order-in-appeal No.220 to 221/2009/(Ahd-II)(CE/CMC/Commr(A)/Ahd dated 7.8.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals I), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. Cadila Pharmaceuticals .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E., Ahmedabad II .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate, for the appellant Present Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 30.1.2017 Final Order No.10361 10362/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
These two appeals are filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal No. 220 to 221/2009/(Ahd-II)(CE/CMC/ Commr(A)/Ahd dated 7.8.2009.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and during the relevant period, that is, December 1999 and April 2000 to April 2001 they had availed CENVAT credit on Laminated False Ceiling and Panels and other items as capital goods. Alleging that credit on such capital goods was not admissible, two show -cause-cum demand notices were issued to the appellants on 6.12.2004/7.12.2004 for recovery of the said credit along with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed and penalties were imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed their appeal on the ground of limitation. Revenue filed appeal against the said order before this Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide it on merit observing that the demand is justifiable for the extended period of limitation. Aggrieved by the said remand order, the appellant approached the Honble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (Tax Appeal No.730 of 2007).
3. Ld. Advocate Shri S.J. Vyas, , for the appellants submits that after analyzing the question of law, the Honble High Court has decided the issue of limitation in their favour, therefore, the demands are being barred by limitation, unsustainable in law.
4. Ld. A.R. for Revenue does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. I find that after examining the question of law, their Lordship vide Order dt.10/11/2016 in Tax Appeal No.730 of 2007 observed as follows:
15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The question is answered in the negative , that is, in favour of the assessee and against Revenue. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was not correct in holding that the demands raised by the show cause notices dated 6th December, 2004 and 7th December 2004 were not barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
6. From the above order, it is clear that the demands have been held as barred by limitation. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Appeals allowed.
(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial scd/ E/1619, 1620/2009-SM 1