Tribunal sets aside time-barred show cause notice for Sugarcane manufacturer, citing no malafide intent.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, as the show cause notice issued to the appellant, a manufacturer of Sugarcane and Molasses, was held to be time-barred. The Tribunal found that there was no suppression or malafide intent on the part of the appellant, and as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the appellant was granted consequential relief in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the show cause notice is barred by limitation and if the provisions of the extended period of limitation are applicable.

Analysis:
- The appellant, a manufacturer of Sugarcane and Molasses, was audited in January 2008, where it was observed that excisable goods were cleared without payment of Central Excise duty. The Range Superintendent directed the appellant to deposit duty amount and raised an objection regarding wrongly taken Cenvat credit.
- The appellant responded, stating that the Cenvat credit was eligible as capital goods and that no credit was taken on goods sold as scrap. The appellant accepted liability for a specific amount under Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
- The show cause notice was issued in March 2010, about 22 months after the audit objection. The appellant argued that the notice was time-barred, citing a ruling of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
- The Tribunal noted that all transactions were recorded, and the appellant had responded to the audit objections promptly. There was no suppression or malafide intent. Relying on the High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period and the extended period was not applicable.
- Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order, and the appellant was granted consequential relief as per the law.

---