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)
\nShri S.P. Ojha (Advocate) for Appellant
\nShri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, AC (AR) for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Archana Wadhwa
\nAfter 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, <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s I.T.I. Ltd. Versus Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, AllahabadCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 85 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 9-7-2018E\/70523\/2018-EX[SM] – FINAL ORDER NO 71371\/2018Central ExciseMrs. 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 … Continue reading “M\/s I.T.I. Ltd. Versus Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe said order of Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned order before Tribunal.
\n3. 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<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. However, a part of a demand would fall within the limitation period and the learned advocate has given und<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n