Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sarda Energy And Minerals Ltd vs Cce & St, Raipur on 30 June, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 52561/2014-EX(SM)
Excise Stay Application No. 52993/2014
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 31-CE/MRT-I/2012 dated 31.01.2012 passed by CCE, Meerut-l]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
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. Sarda Energy And Minerals Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Raipur Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Shri J.M.Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B.B.Sharma, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 30.06.2014 FO ORDER NO._52721 /2014_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, I proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue stands decided by various decisions of the Tribunal.
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri J.M.Sharma learned Advocate and Shri R.Khanna learned AR. I find that the appellant weret denied the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 1,75,923/- in respect of various Iron and Steel items on the ground that they have been used as supporting structural and as such, are not cenvatable items. Revenue has placed reliance on the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case Vandana Global reported as [2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri-LB)].
3. I find that the appeal stands raised by way of show cause notice dated 04.05.2012 for the period 01/04/2007 to 30/09/2010, Tribunal in number of identical situate assessees has held that where the law, prior to passing of the Larger Bench was in favour of the assessee, no malafide can be attributed to them. Reference in this regard can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Kanoria Sugar & General Manufacturing Company Ltd. final order No. FO/51871/2014-SM(Br) dated 25.04.2014. Inasmuch as, in the present appeal the demand is admittedly beyond normal period of limitation I hold the same to be barred by limitation. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounce in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti*