2018 (5) TMI 1619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anakshi Constructions, were engaged in providing site formation and  clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition services. They were issued show-cause notice dt. 30/08/2011 alleging that they have availed ineligible CENVAT credit to the tune of Rs. 33,18,029/- in respect of tippers falling under Chapter sub-heading 87042319 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985. After following the due process, the original authority vide the Order-in-Original dt. 10/01/2013 confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the  respondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide the impugned order allowed the appeal after holding that the demand was clearly time-barred. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts and the law on the points before holding that the entire demand is time-barred. He further submitted that it is not a disputed fact  that respondent had obtained Service Tax registration under the category of site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition service and they have filed ST3 returns for the half year April  2008 to September 2008 on 10/09/2009and the said return has been relied  upon in the show-cause notice issued by the Department. He also submitted that the ST3 return was filed on 10/09/2009 which contained relevant details of the CENVAT credit availed by them on tippers and these details in the ST3 returns had enabled the Department to issue the notice regarding availment of CENVAT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeals) has relied upon the binding judicial precedent to come to the conclusion that the entire demand is barred by limitation. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i.   CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989(40) ELT 276 (SC)] ii.  Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. CCE, Madras [1994(74) ELT 9] iii.  Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-l [2007(216) ELT 177(SC)] iv.  CCE, C & ST(A), Guntur Vs. P.V. Narayana Reddy [2009(14) STR 701(Tri. Bang)] 6.   After considering the submissions of both the parties and  perusal of material and the judgments relied upon by the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order, I find that it is an admitted fact that th....