M/s I.T.I. Ltd. Versus Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 85 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 9-7-2018
E/70523/2018-EX[SM] – FINAL ORDER NO 71371/2018
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Shri S.P. Ojha (Advocate) for Appellant
Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, AC (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Archana Wadhwa
After hearing both the sides I find that the appellant were manufacturing excisable goods as well as doing some trading activities. As per the Revenue, the appellant availed Cenvat Credit on common services, which were being utilized by them in the manufacture of excisable goods as well as in providing trading activities. Accordingly,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t be considered to be exempted services. He also set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant by observing that the appellant simplicitor did not reverse the amount in terms of Rule 6(3), which cannot be considered to be mala fide on their part.
The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned order before Tribunal.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant assails the impugned order on the point of limitation. He submits that there was lot of confusion and the earlier decisions of the Tribunal held that the trading activities cannot be considered to be services, much less exempted services. The law was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and the disputed issue was bona fide issue of interpretation of the provisions of law, no mala fi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pose a mala fide mind with intention to evade payment of duty. It is well settled that if penalty has been set aside, thus leading to believing the bona fide of the appellant, the normal period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue. As such on this ground as also by taking into account the Tribunal's decisions in the case of Krishna Auto Sales vs. Commissioner of C. EX. S.T., Chandigarh reported at 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1121 (Tri.-Del.) and Commissioner of C. EX., Mangalore reported at 2011 (270) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.), I hold that the demand raised beyond the normal period of limitation is not justified, the same is set aside.
5. However, a part of a demand would fall within the limitation period and the learned advocate has given und
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =