2018 (1) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xure A.5 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short, "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.E/4001/2012, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the CESAT was right in dropping the demand towards duly pertaining to the extended period of limitation? ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in dropping the demand towards duty pertaining to the extended period of limitation despite the finding of the adjudicating authority that the State tax/ VAT amounts collected by the assessee from their customers were retained by them and not paid to the Haryana Government? iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in dropping the demand towards duty pertaini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t rules. During the course of audit, it was noticed that it had been retaining 50% of the sales tax collected by it from its customers on account of tax concession allowed to it under Rule 69 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules 2003. Under the deferment scheme, 50% of the total sales tax payable to the sales tax department was to be retained by it on the basis of entitlement certificate issued by the Haryana Government and it was not required to pay this retained amount of sales tax to the sales tax department in future. Accordingly, show cause notices dated 12.5.2009 were issued to the assessee for recovery of central excise duty not paid on the amount retained by the parties as this amount forming part of the income was on account of sal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....extended period of limitation and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to quantify the demand pertaining to the period within limitation are illegal and contrary to the settled law on the point. It was urged that the questions of law as claimed do not touch the classification/valuation of the goods and, thus, the appeal under Section 35G of the Act has been rightly filed. 7. The matter is no longer res integra. In a recent decision of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon II, Commissionerate, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. M/s Minda Industries Limited, CEA No.23 of 2016 decided on 22.3.2017, relying upon the order dated 14.3.2017 in CEA No.18 of 2016, Principal Commissioner of Central Excise....