M/S. Marshall Castings Ltd vs C.C.E. Faridabad

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal17 June 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/60165/2013-EX(SM)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The show cause notice, issued in June 2011 for the period April 2005 to March 2008, invoked the extended period of limitation. Where the show cause notice relies on the extended period, the extended period is not invokable absent any allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of the provisions of the law with intent to evade payment of duty; in the absence of such a charge, the demand beyond the normal period cannot be sustained, and the impugned order, which rests on that demand, falls with it.

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/60165/2013-EX(SM)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 119/CE/Appeal/DLH-IV/2013 dated 01.08.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Faridabad].

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?

M/s. Marshall Castings Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. Faridabad .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri S.S. Dabas, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 17.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52003/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying Cenvat Credit to the appellant on various steel items on which the appellant has taken Cenvat Credit during the period April 2005 to March 2008 on the premises that these items are neither Inputs nor capital goods. Both the lower authorities disallowed the Cenvat Credit. Consequently demanded the duty along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me.

2. Heard the parties.

3. After hearing the parties I find that show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation as same has been issued in June 2011 for the period April 2005 to March 2008 by invoking extended period of limitation and there is no charge of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts or contraventions of provision with an intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts of this case. Consequently impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. In this view the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

E/60165/2013-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