TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Extended limitation inapplicable; demand beyond normal period set aside where no mala fide, Sec 11AC not invocable</h1> <h3>ENZAL CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHARUCH ENZAL CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD.</h3> CESTAT AHMEDABAD - AT allowed the appeal, holding the extended period of limitation inapplicable and setting aside demand beyond the normal limitation ... Time limitation for filing appeal - non-maintenance of separate account for capital goods/input service and opted to pay 8% value of the exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that in the earlier round of litigation, the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) himself has said that the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit but, this Tribunal finally hold that Cenvat Credit is not entitled to the appellant. Therefore, as the Commissioner (Appeals) himself was in doubt whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit or not. In that circumstances, mala fides of the appellant are missing. Therefore, provisions of Sec 11AC of the Act are not applicable. In that circumstances, extended period of limitation is not invokable. Therefore, the demand pertaining to the period beyond normal period of limitation is set aside. Appeal allowed. The appellant, a bulk drug manufacturer, did not maintain separate accounts for capital goods/input services and paid 8% value for exempted goods under Rule 6(3), Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. One drug (Diethyl Carbamazine Citrate) and a raw material were exempt under relevant notifications; Revenue alleged the input was used exclusively for exempted goods and issued a show cause notice dated 4-10-2006 invoking the extended period. Adjudication denied Cenvat credit; Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it; on Revenue appeal the Tribunal held the appellant not entitled to credit but remanded the limitation issue. On remand the Commissioner (Appeals) invoked extended limitation. Tribunal finds that because the Commissioner (Appeals) 'himself has said that the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit' and thus was in doubt, 'mala fides of the appellant are missing.' Consequently, provisions of Section 11AC are not applicable and the 'extended period of limitation is not invocable.' Demand beyond the normal limitation period set aside; appeal allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
