M/S. Balkrishna Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal26 February 2015

CitationExcise Appeal No. 3865 of 2012-Ex (SM)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a show cause notice invokes the extended period of limitation, the existence of contrary decisions of various High Courts on the admissibility of the credit renders the extended period not invokable, and the demand issued under it is therefore barred by limitation.

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. IIExcise Appeal No. 3865 of 2012-Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 122(RDN) CE/JPR I /2012 dated 12.09.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur I

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr 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?

M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Jaipur I

Appearance:

Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 26.02.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ A 50584 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The short issue involved in the matter is whether appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on repair, maintenance of colony and guest house under the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. Learned Counsel fairly conceded that the appellant is not having the case on merits but on limitation in view of the contrary decision of various High Courts. Therefore, he prays that as show cause notice has been issued for the period January, 2010 to February, 2010 on 9.6.2011, the demands are not unsustainable.

3. Heard the learned Counsel. Without considering the merits of the case, I find that as there are contrary decisions of various High Courts , therefore I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable. As the show cause notice in this matter has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation, therefore I hold that demands are barred by limitation. Consequently, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

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