2018 (4) TMI 1014 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – Diesel Hydraulic Shunting Locomotive – time limitation – Held that: – The appellant have availed the credit in the month of June 2013 and thereafter they intimated to the department regarding the availment of credit on locomotive vide their letter dt. 6.8.2013 thereafter some correspondence were taken place between the department and the appellant – it is clear that they have not suppressed any fact as regard availment of credit of the locomotive therefore department should have issued the show cause notice within normal period of 1 year which the department failed to do so – extended period not invokable – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – E/87382/2017 – A/85588/201
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
as taken in June 2013 and the intimation thereof was made to the department on 6.8.2013. Show cause notice was issued after normal period of 1 year despite the entire fact was disclosed to the department, therefore the demand is time barred. She submits that even on merit also credit is admissible in the light of the following judgments: (i) Jayaswal Neco Ltd. vs. CCE 2015 (319) ELT 247 (SC) (ii) Aditya Cement vs. U012008 (221) ELT 362 (Raj.) (iii) Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CC &CE 2016 (339) ELT 127 (Tri. Hyd) (iv) CCE, C & ST vs. Bhusan Steel Ltd. 2012 (286) ELT 745 (Tri. Kolkata) (v) Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs. CCE 2017 (352) ELT 235 (Tri-Del.) (vi) Hitachi Life & Solution India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST 2014 (311) ELT 102 (
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
.8.2013 thereafter some correspondence were taken place between the department and the appellant. The invoice on which the credit was availed was also submitted on 26.8.2013 however the show cause notice was issued after the normal period of 1 year i.e. on 14.1.2016. With the above correspondence of the appellant, it is clear that they have not suppressed any fact as regard availment of credit of the locomotive therefore department should have issued the show cause notice within normal period of 1 year which the department failed to do so. Therefore the extended period is not available to the department for demand of cenvat credite. Therefore I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal on the ground of time bar without going into th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =