2017 (10) TMI 1028

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. During the course of audit conducted by the Central Excise Audit, in March, 2009, it was observed that the appellant is availing benefit of Sales Tax concession under the Sales Tax Department Scheme. The appellant has retained 50% of the Sales Tax collected by them from their customers, on account of tax concession allowed to them by Entitlement Certificate dated 1.12.2006 issued by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Gurgaon under Rule 69 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003. As per the said certificate, the appellant is entitled for Sales Tax deferment for the period 1.12.2006 to 30.11.2016. Under deferment scheme, 50% of the total Sales Tax payable to the Sales Tax department is retained by the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. -2016 (331) ELT 261 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein after considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.-2014 (307) ELT 625 (SC) has held that the amount retained by the appellant as per Entitlement Certificate Haryana Vat Department, no duty is payable, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay duty. He also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Man Industries (India) Ltd.-2017 (6) TMI 419-CESTAT MUMBAI. In alternate, he submits that the issue involved in this case is as to whether the appellant is liable to pay duty was in dispute, therefore, the extended period is not invokable consequently, the penalties are also not imposable on the appellant. 4. On th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant (a) show cause notice was issued on 3.4.2008 to demand of duty of Rs. 1,31,39,642/- for the period December, 2006 to October, 2007 and (b) show cause notice was issued on 4.5.2009 to demand of duty of Rs. 18,76,83,599/- for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. As in both the show cause notices, cover the period of December, 2006 to October, 2007 twice. Third show cause notice was issued was issued on7.5.2010 to demand of Rs. 61,97,831/- for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has accepted the plea of the appellant that for the period December, 2006 to October, 2007 is overlapping and observed as under: 2. There is duplicacy of demand for the period December 2006 to October 2007 as two s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 to October, 2007 has been dropped. From reading of the paragraph 25 (2) of the impugned order which is incorporated hereinabove shows that the overlapping demand as per show cause notice dated 3.4.2008 has been dropped. As the order of the Ld. Commissioner is not specific to drop the demand of show cause notice dated 4.5.2009, in that circumstance, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant, therefore, we hold that the Commissioner himself dropped the demand of Rs. 1,31,39,642/- raised against the appellant by way of show cause notice dated 3.4.2008. 11. As we have already held that the show cause notice dated 4.5.2009 has been issued to the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation, therefore, the demands for t....