TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he relevant facts are that the appellant is a registered manufacturer of ceramic glazed and unglazed floor and wall tiles falling under heading 69089090 and 69079090 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant has been availing credit of duty paid on capital goods, inputs and input services as per the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and utilising the same for payment of Central Excise Duty on their final products. 3. On 27.01.2012, due to industrial violence and fire that ensued in the appellants factory at Yanam, various assets like machinery, vehicles, raw materials and finished stocks were reported to have been destroyed. The Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, after assessing the situation, addressed a letter dated 06.02.2012 to the appellant seeking an estimate of the extent of damage occurred to the finished goods, inputs etc., and to fix a date for physical verification. The appellant, responded intimating that the situation in Yanam was tense and not conducive for their entry into the premises to carry out any verification. After exchange of correspondence on several dates, the Appellant vide the Letter dated 08.09.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an appeal before the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ( Appeals-I). The Appellate Authority, however, vide the impugned order rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 6. Shri B. Venugopal, advocate appearing for the appellant contented that the SCN dated 01.02.2017 is totally barred by limitation, since all material facts regarding the incident of industrial violence on 27.1.2012 and the consequent loss of finished goods, inputs and capital goods, as well as loss of records were fully and contemporaneously within the knowledge of the Department and were in fact, acted upon by them. Setting forth the chronology of the events in detail, the Ld. Counsel contended that the fire and arson on 27.01.2012 were immediately reported, an FIR was registered, and the Jurisdictional Superintendent had also vide letter dated 06.02.2012 called for details of the loss. The appellant had subsequently provided the details sought, duly furnishing copies of Daily Stock Account, and statements of finished goods, stores ledger and inventories of raw materials and stores & spares, which was verified in detail by the Department under the Mahazar dated 30.09.2012. It was contented that it is based o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the capital goods had already been put to use for the manufacture of finished products, cenvat credit on them is not liable to reversed. Reliance was placed on the decision in Biopac India Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,- 2008(224)ELT 548 (Tribunal-Ahmedabad), which was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CCE and customs vs. Biopac India Corporation Ltd,2010(258)E.L.T 56 ( Gujarat). It was prayed that the appeal be allowed. 8. The appellant had also since submitted an undertaking to the effect that after the industrial violence, the factory has remained closed and has not been revived and that therefore the cenvat credit balance amount lying in the central excise records of the Appellant as on 26.01.2012 remained in the books and was not utilized therefore. It was undertaken that the cenvat credit balance is to be considered or deemed to have been reversed by the appellant, without claim for such cenvat credit balance any time in future. 9. Shri. C.N. Satyanarayana, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the responded reiterated findings in the impugned order. 10. We have heard both sides and perused the material available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal has been confirmed in the companion appeal. Once that be the position and the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the extended period of limitation could not have been validly applied, the Tribunal, in our view, acted outside its jurisdiction in entering upon the merits of the dispute on whether the demand for duty should be confirmed. Once it is held that the demand is time barred, there would be no occasion for the Tribunal to enquire into the merits of the issues raised by the Revenue. 23. In State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I)- (2009) 5 SCC 121, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the consumer forum had held that the complaint was barred by limitation but had nonetheless proceeded to decide the issue on merits. Holding that this would amount to an illegality, the Supreme Court observed : "12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation, where the consumer forum held that the complaint was barred by limitation, but nonetheless had proceeded to decide the issue on merits. Dealing with the issue, which is similar to the case on hand, at Paragraph 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India's case (cited supra), held as follows :- "12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside." Applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries reported in (2009) 5 SCC 121, the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v. M/s. Monsanto Manufacture....