TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the show-cause notices invoking the extended period of limitation were barred, where the availment of CENVAT credit on steel items used for fabrication of support structures had been disclosed in the monthly returns and correspondence with the department.
Analysis: The appellant had reflected the credit availed in the monthly Central Excise returns with annexures, and the department had raised a query which was replied to and received by the office of the Commissioner on 19.06.2009. On these facts, the availment of credit was already within the knowledge of the department. In the absence of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation or suppression with intent to evade duty, the extended period could not be invoked. The issue on admissibility of credit was also treated as a debatable one.
Conclusion: The show-cause notices were time-barred and the invocation of the extended period of limitation was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts are disclosed to the department, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.
TaxTMI 
