Amoda Iron & Steel Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...
- CitationAppeal No. 34-2013 dated 10/07/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Ser
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a demand for CENVAT credit rests on an issue that was subsequently settled by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, and the demand is raised on that basis, the extended period of limitation is not invokable, so that the entire demand falls outside the limitation period and the matter may be remanded without requiring pre-deposit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 34-2013 dated 10/07/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals) GUNTUR]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL 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?
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
Amoda Iron & Steel Limited Jayanthipuram (v), Jaggayyapet (m), KRISHNA - 521175 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax GUNTUR P.B.NO. 331...C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Rajan, A.R. For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 08/09/2015
Date of Decision: 08/09/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21878 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Nobody appeared for the appellant in spite of notice of hearing having been sent to them well in advance. We also find that the appellants were not represented on all the previous occasions. Accordingly, we have heard learned A.R. and have gone through the impugned order.
2. CENVAT credit of Rs 45.97 lakhs and of Rs 2.34 lakhs stands denied to the appellant in respect of various iron and steel articles on the ground that the issue stands covered by the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global reported as [2010 (253) ELT 440 (LB)]. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the duty which the appellant did not deposit and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.
3. At this stage, we find that the entire demand is hit by bar of limitation. In identical cases, the Tribunal has held that where the issue stands settled subsequently by the Larger Bench decision, the extended period of limitation would not be invokable. Accordingly, we deem it fit to allow the stay petition unconditionally and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits including the point of limitation without insisting on any predeposit. The stay petition as also the appeal gets disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
pnr
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free