NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Versus CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPUR
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 356 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E\/51317\/2017- (DB) – Final Order No. 53237\/2018
Central Excise
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nShri Rajeev Aggarwal, Adv. for the appellant
\nShri R.K. Mishra, DR for the respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa
\n1. After hearing both the sides represented by Shri Rajeev Aggarwal Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.K Mishra Ld. DR for Revenue, we find that the appellant is 100 per cent subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. With effect from dated March, 2011, excise duty was levied on their final product i.e. Coal. During the period April, 2011 to 21\/06\/2012, the appellant availed the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various inputs which were subsequently cleared “as such” to their sister unit located at Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In as much as <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n eir final product, which was leviable to duty of excise. As such he submits that duty required to be paid by them was available as Credit to their sister units and the entire exercise was Revenue neutral. In such a scenario no malafide can be attributed to them so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. He also submits that the appellant is a public sector undertaking, being 100 per cent subsidiary of Coal India Pvt. Ltd., and as per the settled law no malafide can be attributed to them as not single person is benefited by such an action of the assessee. In this scenario also, invokation of extended period cannot be upheld. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n lity. As the Tribunal had set aside the demand in that case but imposed penalty on technical contraventions, Hon'ble High Court held that even penalties were not imposable. To the same effect is the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Nagpur- 2018(11) G.S.T.L. 344 Bom) and Gujrat High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of C.EX. & CUS., Vadodara-II vs. Indeos ABS Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj) and Tribunal decisions in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Special Steel Ltd. 2015 (329) ELT 449( Tri.-Mumbai) & Sarover Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Serive Tax, Mumbai, 2018(10) GSTL 72(Tri-Mum) = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Versus CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPURCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 356 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 1-11-2018Appeal No. E\/51317\/2017- (DB) – Final Order No. 53237\/2018Central ExciseMRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rajeev Aggarwal, Adv. for the appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for … Continue reading “NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Versus CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPUR”<\/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-14879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14879","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=14879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Countering the arguments, Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submits that admitted the appellant was required to reverse the credit in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. They have availed the excess credit on their unit, without utilising the inputs, which is a clear violation of the provisions of law. As such he supports the impugne<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. In as much as and admittedly Revenue neutral situation is involved in the present appeal and the appellant is a PSU, we are of the view that extended period is not invokable. Impugned orders are accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
\n(Dictated and pronounced <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n