C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur vs M/S. Sarda Energy & Mineral Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal26 June 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/60308/2013-EX(SM)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a show cause notice invokes the extended period of limitation, and the assessee has regularly filed its returns with no objection raised by the Revenue during the relevant period, the demand cannot be sustained for the extended period, so that the demand is set aside on the ground of limitation without the tribunal examining the merits of the underlying Cenvat credit claim.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIAppeal No. E/60308/2013-EX(SM)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 178/RPR-I/2013 dated 26.06.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, 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 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?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur .Appellants

Vs.

M/s. Sarda Energy & Mineral Ltd. .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Appellant

Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 26.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52054/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Heard the parties.

2. In this case Revenue has sought to deny Cenvat Credit to the respondent on various steel items which have been used by the Respondent for fabricating supporting structure during the period 2007-08 whereas show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation on 03.03.2012. During the relevant time there are various decisions in favour of the respondent holding that on steel items which have been used for fabrication of supporting structures, the respondent is entitled to take Cenvat Credit. The respondent who has regularly filed their ER-1 returns but no objection was raised by the Revenue during the relevant time.

3. Without going into the merits of the case, I find that respondent is having a good case on limitation. As show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, demand sought to be confirmed against the respondent by invoking extended period of limitation are rightly set aside by the Ld. Commissioner (A).

4. In these terms, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

E/60308/2013-EX(SM)

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