Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Somi Conveyor Belting Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur Ii on 5 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 05/07/2013. DATE OF DECISION : 05/07/2013. Excise Stay Application No. 55157 of 2013 in Appeal No. 55169 of 2013 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 57 (RDN) CE/JPR-II/2012 dated 11/10/2012 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Jaipur.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s Somi Conveyor Belting Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE, Jaipur II Respondent
Appearance Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Panda, Authorized Representative (AR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 56926/2013 Dated : 05/07/2013 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, I proceed to decide the appeal itself as the issue stand covered in favour of the appellant.
2. Demand of duty stands raised against the appellant vide show cause notice dated 27/2/10, by proposing to deny the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the various iron and steel items used as structural, during the period December 2006 to November 2007. Admittedly the issue stands decided against the appellant by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. LB) and is settled. The only issue required to be considered in the present appeal is as to whether the extended period of limitation was available to the Revenue or not.
3. Admittedly during the relevant period, there were decisions in favour of the assessee laying down that such use of various iron and steel items was admissible cenvatable inputs. The matter was subsequently declared against the assessee by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal. The Honble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that where there are decisions in favour of the assessee during the relevant period or there are contrary decisions or the matters are referred subsequently to the Larger Bench, no allegation of suppression can be attributed to the assessee. One such reference can be made to the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh I reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.), Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) and Mentha & Allied Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 494 (S.C.).
4. The Tribunal by following said decisions, in other appeals similarly situate has held that longer period is not available to the Revenue for raising and confirming the demands. In as much as in the present case, the show cause notice stand raised on 27/2/2010 for the period December 2006 to November 2007, the same is factually barred by limitation. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) PK ??
??
??
??
2