TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recover CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,40,29,695/-. After a due process, the case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order dated 27/3/2014. The ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice and imposed an equal penalty on the appellant. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The said appeal was decided vide final order no. 54600 of 2014 dated 27/11/2014. The Tribunal held that the demand in the present case is time barred and set aside the impugned order on that limited issue without going into the merits of the case. 3. The Revenue filed an appeal with the Honble High Court of Chhattisgarh-Bilaspur against the final order of the Tribunal. The Honble High Court vide their order dated 25/8/2015 set aside the order dated 27/11/2015 of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to hear the parties afresh and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, Shri Amit Jain, submitted that during the period March, 2006 to June, 2009, the appellants procured various iron and steel items like MS Plate, MS Angle, MS Rail, Joists, Coils, MS Beam,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ession clause cannot be invoked. Ld. Counsel placed the reliance on the following cases: (i) Apex Electricals Vs. Union of India - 1992 (61) ELT 413 (Guj.) (ii) Unique Resin Industries Vs. CCE - 1995 (75) ELT 861 (T) (iii) Gufic Pharma Vs. CCE - 1996 (85) ELT 67 (T) Affirmed by Supreme Court at 1997 (93) ELT A186 e) It is well settled legal position when the matter was in dispute involving interpretation and different decision by the Original and Appellate fora, longer period of demand cannot be invoked. It is clear that reference to larger bench in the case of Vandana Global Limited was only on account of conflicting decisions. Hence, when the issue itself is amenable to various interpretation, the appellant cannot be alleged to have suppressed or committed fraud with an intend to evade the payment of duty. The ld. Counsel relied on the following case law in this regard: (i) CCE Vs. N.R. Aggarwal Industries - 2014 (300) ELT 213 (Guj.) (ii) ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE-2012 (285) ELT 292 (T) (iii) CCE Vs. Orion Ferro Alloys - 2010 (259) ELT 84 (T) (iv) Reliance Industries Vs. CCE-2013-TI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m July, 2007 was not conducted for more than two years. The show cause notice states during the scrutiny of monthly ER1-Returns it was revealed that they had taken CENVAT Credit of Central Excise Duty paid on structural items of iron and steel. The notice was issued on 27/7/2012 and well beyond the normal period of demand. The original authority justified the applicability of extended period. His findings are at Para 39 of the impugned order. He observed that the appellant did not declare the manufacture of any capital goods using steel items in the ER1-Returns. Further, he observed that the appellants failed to produce quantity-wise details of input used in manufacture of such capital goods duly certified by Chartered Engineer to establish the said items were used in the manufacture of capital goods which were, in turn, used in the manufacture of process of excisable goods. The ld. Original Authority relied on certain case laws (Para 39.1 of the impugned order). We find on perusal, the case laws deal with a set of facts which have no relevance to decide the present case. The Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suppressed the fact. We find the element of contradiction in such observation. 9. We tend to agree the appellants' plea that they have entertained a bonafide belief regarding the eligibility of MS Angles, etc for CENVAT Credit during the impugned period. This is supported by the adjudicating authorities finding in one of the appellants' other unit in Andhra Pradesh. The credit on similar iron and steel items were allowed by the department in that unit. We were informed that no appeal has been filed against the said order. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. EX., CUS. & S.T., Daman Vs. N.R. Aggarwal Industries reported in 2014 (300) ELT 213 (Guj.) upheld the Tribunal's order regarding the non availability of extended period for demand in similar situation. The Hon'ble High Court reproduced the observation of the Tribunal to the fact that prior to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Limited there were certain decision in favour of the assessee, the bonafide belief on the part of the appellant regarding the availability of credit has to be upheld. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation JT. Vs. COMMR. OF C.EX.....