Chennai Radha Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Conclusion: Extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax and accordingly, set aside the entire demand as time barred.
Held: Assessee-company was engaged in providing multiple taxable services, availed CENVAT credit on certain capital goods and claimed abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST. Department issued a show cause notice alleging wrongful availment of credit, ineligible documentation, and incorrect claim of abatement, invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalty, which was upheld in appeal. On further appeal, Tribunal held that the demand was wholly barred by limitation. It was observed that assessee had regularly filed ST-3 returns disclosing the availment of credit and that the records had been subjected to audit scrutiny. The issues raised in the show cause notice were already within the knowledge of the Department, and there was no evidence of wilful suppression or intent to evade payment of tax. Mere non-disclosure of detailed particulars, in the absence of a statutory requirement, or failure by the Department to scrutinize returns, could not justify invocation of the extended limitation period. Accordingly, the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) was held to be inapplicable, rendering the entire demand time-barred. In view of this finding, the Tribunal refrained from examining the merits of the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Chennai Radha Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein, is challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 353/2016 (STA-I) dated 13.06.2016 (the impugned order).
