2017 (1) TMI 1082

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ider of telephone services and they are availing CENVAT credit of excise duty paid on prefabricated shelters. The appellant submitted the details of the credit taken on shelters for the period 10.9.2004 to 30.9.2006 to the extent of Rs. 1,20,960/- to the Department vide letter dated 22.1.2008. Subsequent to the information submitted by the appellant, the department issued a show-cause notice dated 2.6.2008 invoking extended period of limitation. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued proposing to deny the CENVAT credit. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice and after due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the appellant vide Order-in-Original dated 18.8.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riod of limitation on the ground that in ST-3 returns filed by the appellant, the relevant information about the availment of CENVAT credit on angles, channels, beams and prefabricated buildings have been conspicuously missing and thereby the appellants have suppressed the fact justifying invoking extended period of limitation. In reply to this, the learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that they have been regularly filing ST-3 returns wherein they have mentioned the amount of credit availed by them, therefore the fact that appellants were availing credit on tower/tower material was known to the department. There was no requirement in return to mention about the items on which credit was availed. Had there been any doubt, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(35) STR 865 (Bom.) iii. Vodafone India Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2015 (324) ELT 434 (Bom.) He also placed reliance on the following decisions which were in favour of the appellant. i. GTL Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai: 2015 (37) STR 577 (Tri.-Mum.) ii. Reliance Infratel Ltd. vs. CST: 2015 (38) STR 984 (Tri.-Mumbai) iii. Essar Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai: 2015 (40) STR 591 (Tri.-Mumbai) iv. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai-I: 2015 (40) STR 591 (TR) He further submitted that when the issue in dispute has been referred to Larger Bench relating to the subject matter of interpretation then in that case extended the period of limitation is not invocable. In support of his submission, he rel....