K.V. Rao, Suresh Dorbala, Vice ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 3 October, 2007
2. Notwithstanding certain grounds raised in this appeal, ld.counsel submits today that, on merits, the challenge against denial of the credit is not pressed in view of the Tribunals Larger Bench decision in Essar Steel Ltd. Vs CCE [2004-TIOL-807-CESTAT]. However, it is urged that the demand is barred by limitation. In this connection, it is pointed out that the relevant show-cause notice did not invoke sub-rule (2) of Rule 57U. According to ld.SDR, this provision was also invoked inasmuch as it was clearly alleged in the SCN that the noticee had contravened the provisions of the Central Excise Rules. On a perusal of the SCN, though I have found such an allegation against the assessee, I have not come across any allegation to the effect that the assessee had contravened any provision of law with intent to evade payment of duty. It is not in dispute that any of the ingredients such as fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts required for invoking the larger period of limitation was not alleged in the SCN. In other words, sub-rule (2) of Rule 57U was not invoked in this case. In the circumstances, the entire demand, which is for a period far remote from the date of the SCN is hopelessly time-barred. There is no question of recovery of interest either, nor the proposal to levy penalty is sustainable.