2018 (12) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....omponents, are holders of Central Excise Registration No. AADFP8244NXM001/AADFP8244NXM002 for the manufacture of excisable goods viz. "Auto Turned Components" falling under Chapter 8413.99 of the Central Excise Act, 1985. During the course of Audit, it was noticed that the appellants in their Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2005 have availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 1,24,658/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight only) being 50% of the Cenvat Credit availed on such Capital Goods and also have simultaneously availed the benefit of depreciation under the Income Tax Act on the same Capital Goods valued at Rs. 18,00,438/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Four Hundred and Thirty Eight only). Similarly for the period ending 31.03.2004 an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that on merit, the appellant has no case but the entire demand in the impugned order is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the stand taken by the appellant at the material point of time i.e between 2002-03 and 2005-06 was fully in tune with the legal position enunciated by the Tribunal till the same was reversed in 2010 by the Hon'ble High Court as reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 369 (Kar.) in the case of CCE & ST, Bangalore Vs. Suprajit Engineering Ltd. He further submitted that no malafide can be attributed to the appellant as he was having a bona fide belief duly supported by the decision of the Hon'ble T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....L.T. 368 (Kar.). Further I find that in the present case, the entire demand is beyond limitation because in the present case the demand for recovery of credit availed during financial year ending 31.03.2004 and 31.03.2005 were made in the show-cause notice dated September 2016 is fully barred by limitation because there was no malafide intention as the appellant had a favourable case decided by the Tribunal in his favour which supported the stand of the appellant. Further I find that the appellant had a bona fide belief supported by the decision of the Tribunal during the relevant time that he is entitled to take the cenvat credit as well as the depreciation but since the judgment was reversed by the Hon'ble High Court but during that peri....