AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & ors dated 28.09.2012 passed in Tax Appeal No. 1153 of 2011. In the said decision, the Court held as under: "5. We notice that in case of Prayagraj Dying & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) the Division Bench had answered all the questions in favour of the revenue except the question of limitation. In this respect, the Court had held as under: "12. The next question is whether demand of reversal is barred by the period of limitation. In our opinion, in view of our above finding that if the original document is issued even by practising fraud, a holder in due course for valuable consideration unless shown to be a party to a fraud, cannot be proceeded wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) where the Supreme Court took a view that in the absence of a willful misdeclaration on the part of the respondent-assessee, there was no scope of invoking invoking Section 11.A of the Act. 14. We now propose to deal with the decisions cited by the Revenue. 14.1 In the case of Narayanan v. Kumaram reported in 2004 (4) SCC 26, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in going into excruciating details on facts in a Second Appeal by exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reversing a well-considered judgment of the first appellate Court on facts especially when no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arose for consideration, and in that cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the authorities had examined the cases in detail and no interference was called for because several issues of facts have been gone into, examined and conclusions had been arrived at on the basis of evidence on record, and such conclusions are not pointed out to be perverse. The Division Bench distinguished the case of the earlier Division Bench in the case of D.P. Singh [supra] by holding that the petitioner cannot take shelter that it had no knowledge or claim total innocence that identity of the persons with whom they claimed to have dealt with the business were not known to them nor did they take reasonable steps. Since, the question of larger period of limitation was not the subject-matter of the said decision, the said decision cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Faridabad) reported in 2009 (246) ELT 18 [P&H], the Punjab & Haryana High Court found that the document under which exemption was claimed was forged and in such a situation, according to the Division Bench of the said Court, the purchaser would step into the shoes of the seller and did not acquire a better title than the seller. 14.5.1 We have already pointed out that in the cases before us, the document is genuine one and the appellants were also not alleged to be a party to the fraud, and therefore, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case although for not taking reasonable step as provided in Rule 7(2), the Appellants are not entitled to credit of Cenvat. 14.6 Simi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in filing the appeal, setting out in some detail the reason for which the appeal had been filed after the period of limitation. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajitsingh Thakursingh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat [(1981) 1 SCC 495] and observing that it could not look into the nature of the grounds of appeal. In such a situation, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal would appear to have lost sight of the cardinal principle which is enshrined in Section 17 of the Limitation Act and that fraud nullifies everything. 14.7.1 In the case before us, we have already pointed out that the Revenue has not alleged that the appellants had any role in the fraud, and if any fraud ha....