Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. MI/AV/207/2011 dated 19.04.2011 & Order-in-Appeal No. BK/37 & 49/2012 dated 02.08.2012 & 22.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I & IV.
Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked on matters interpreted differently by different courts
Brief of the case:
- The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Aarti Industries Ltd. vs. CCEx, Thane held that wrong availment of Cenvat credit cannot be said to a willful attempt of suppression with the intent to evade the payment of duty when the matter has been interpreted in different manner by different tribunals and courts.
- In that situation, no malafide intention can be attributed on the part of the appellants so as to justify invoking the longer period of limitation.
Facts of the case:
- The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely bulk drugs classified under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.It availed the credit of the duty on capital goods namely aluminum coils, S.S. Sheets, plates channels, M.S. angles etc. classified under chapter heading 72.
- During the course of audit, department objected the above mentioned goods are not capital goods eligible for credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The department alleged willful suppression with the intent to evade duty. A show cause notice was issued by invoking extended period of limitation.
- By adjudication order the Dy. Commissioner upheld the show-cause notice, which was subsequently also confirmed by the Commissioner. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.
Contention of the Assessee:
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
