TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable and whether the demand within the period of limitation is demandable from the Appellant in view of the doctrine of revenue neutrality. 2. Shri P.M. Dave, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the Appellant had cleared certain Cenvatable inputs under CT-3 certificates to their 100% EOU without reversal of CENVAT Credit. It was his case that the period of demand is from 2005-06 to December 2009. The learned Advocate argued that during the period, the case laws like Lakshmi Synthetic Machinery Mnfrs. Ltd Vs CCE Coimbatore [2005 (184) ELT 109 (Tri-Che.)] and Gharda Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE Pune-II [2006 (196) ELT 32....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vs CCE Raigad [2009 (240) ELT 616 (Tri-Mum)] ii) Motif India Pvt.Ltd. Vs CST Ahmedabad Order No.A/10297/2015, dt.20.03.2015 iii) Jayshree Instruments Pvt.Ltd. & Others Vs CCE Ahmedabad-III Order No.A/927-928/WZB/AHD/2012, dt.03.07.2012 2.2 The learned Advocate made the Bench go through the Para 3 of the Order dt.03.07.2012 passed by this Bench in the case of Jayshree Instruments Pvt.Ltd. & Others Vs CCE Ahmedabad-III (supra) to argue that no demand can be confirmed within the period of limitation on revenue neutrality. 3. Shri G. Jha, Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue, argued that the extended period in this case is applicable as the Appellant at no stage of the proceedings has mentioned in the invoic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the certain inputs from their DTA unit to their 100% EOU under CT-3 certificate under Form ARE-3, with due approval of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. As per the case law of Lakshmi Synthetic Machinery Mnfrs. Ltd Vs CCE Coimbatore (supra), Gharda Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE Pune-II (supra) available during the disputed period, CENVAT Credit was not required to be reversed when the inputs are cleared as such under a CT-3 certificate to a 100% EOU. The Appellant was following the procedure of not reversing the CENVAT Credit under a bonafide belief that such a credit/duty is not required to be reversed/paid. Only after the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd Vs CCE Trichy (supra), delivered on 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal also, there were favourable judgments wherein it stood decided during the disputed period that the CENVAT Credit by the DTA unit is not required to be reversed/paid when the inputs are cleared under CT-3 certificate by DTA unit to a 100% EOU. 6. In view of the above observations and settled proposition of law, the demand beyond the period of one year from the date of clearance is not sustainable and is required to be dismissed as time barred. 7. So far as the non-payment of demand within the period of limitation on revenue neutrality is concerned, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the case law of Automotive Stampings & Assemblies Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I (supra) to argue that revenue neutrality cannot be accepted in each....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined. Other decisions cited by the learned Counsel also support this view. As regards the decisions in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd (supra), in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd, it was cited and was not followed since the appeal filed by Jay Yuhshin Ltd in the Supreme Court was allowed, setting aside the demand and penalty. The issue involved in the case of Baba Asia Ltd, was entirely different as can be seen from the observation of the Tribunal If the duty was required to be paid on 01.01.008, on account of litigation, the payment was delayed merely because, on that day, the Appellant had some credit available in his account, if sought to be utilized in 2010, certainly in such situation, it cannot be said that the relief would be of a re....