BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. C.C.E.
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-74
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 06,2015

Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
C.C.E. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MARUTI SUZUKI LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.K.Das, Member (J) - (1.)THE relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Technical Grade Pesticides. They used Furnace oil for generating electricity, which was used captively as well as to other units in the same premises. A show cause notice dt. 10.09.2007 was issued proposing to disallow CENVAT Credit of Rs. 12,00,552.00 along with interest and penalties on the Furnace oil used in generation of electricity cleared to other units during the period from April 2003 to November 2003. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT Credit along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount. A penalty of Rs. 3,00,000.00 was imposed on Shri Pramod S. Patel (Appellate No. 2) General Manager of the appellant company under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
(2.)LD . Advocate on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that the merits of the case is against them in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki v. CCE : 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC). He strongly contested the demand of duty on limitation. He submits that there was a demand of CENVAT Credit on the identical issue in their own case by show cause notice dt. 12.08.2005 for the period December 2001 to March 2003, which was set aside as time barred by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/877 -882/WZB/AHD/2012, dt. 04.06.12. He submits that an amount of Rs. 8,158.00 out of Rs. 12,00,552.00, is relating to denial of CENVAT Credit on the ground that the documents were not in the name of the company. He submits that they are not contesting the demand of Rs. 8,158.00.
On the other hand, ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the earlier decision of the Tribunal is not applicable in the present case.

(3.)AFTER hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that on the identical issue, a show cause notice dt. 12.08.2005 was issued proposing denial of CENVAT Credit for the earlier period from December 2001 to March 2003. Division Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/877 -882/WZB/AHD/2012, dt. 04.06.2012 set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: - -
"8. As regards the appeal No. E/248/2006 in Order -in -Appeal No. KS/268/Daman/2006, dt. 21.8.2008, we find that the Show Cause Notice is issued on 12.08.2005 for the period December 2001 to March 2003. It is surprising to note that this period is also included in the Show Cause Notice dt. 28.04.2004 while confirming demand of reversal of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 50,79,458/ -, which was decided as hit by limitations in assesses favour. Be that as it may, the Show Cause Notice dt. 12.08.2005 is belatedly time barred, inasmuch as the very same issue was in question in the earlier Show Cause Notice dt. 28.04.2004 and hence the Revenue could not have invoked the extended the period of limitation in this Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, the impugned order in this appeal is upheld in toto and the Revenues appeal is rejected."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.