Appellant allowed to claim Notification No.20/2007-CE refunds despite inadvertent filing under Notification No.56/2003-CE as revenue did not dispute e...
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The tribunal affirmed that Rs.3,73,977 was correctly excluded from assessment under Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but upheld a tax demand of Rs.10,75,681 for the post-POTR period and confirmed an additional service-tax liability of Rs.14,84,423 for lack of verifiable CENVAT reversal, all recoverable with interest. Invocation of the extended period was rejected for lack of willful suppression; the demand falls within the normal limitation period. Penalties under ss.77 and 78, FA 1994, were set aside on merits; consequently no waiver under s.80 was necessary. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The tribunal affirmed that Rs.3,73,977 was correctly excluded from assessment under Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, but upheld a tax demand of Rs.10,75,681 for the post-POTR period and confirmed an additional service-tax liability of Rs.14,84,423 for lack of verifiable CENVAT reversal, all recoverable with interest. Invocation of the extended period was rejected for lack of willful suppression; the demand falls within the normal limitation period. Penalties under ss.77 and 78, FA 1994, were set aside on merits; consequently no waiver under s.80 was necessary. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
