Extended Limitation cannot be Invoked Twice for the Same Issue: CESTAT [Read Order]
Once a demand is raised using the extended period, another cannot be issued for the same issue in a later period
![Extended Limitation cannot be Invoked Twice for the Same Issue: CESTAT [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CESTAT-CESTAT-Kolkata-Extended-Limitation-TAXSCAN.jpg "Extended Limitation cannot be Invoked Twice for the Same Issue: CESTAT [Read Order]")
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) rules that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked twice for the same issue. Neo Metaliks Limited,appellant-assessee,challenged the Order-in-Appeal, where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision confirming a demand of Rs. 58,938, including cess, along with interest...
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) rules that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked twice for the same issue.
Neo Metaliks Limited,appellant-assessee,challenged the Order-in-Appeal, where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision confirming a demand of Rs. 58,938, including cess, along with interest and an equal penalty. The dispute involved the denial of CENVAT credit for services availed by the Head Office in 2008-09, including courier, rent, retainership fees, air tickets, commission, bus rental, labor charges, telephone, and car hire.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
The assessee argued that the credit was denied because the services were availed at the head office instead of the factory and due to the lack of ISD registration. However, they maintained that the services were received and used at the factory, and credit could not be denied on procedural grounds.
They also stated that the demand was based on audit objections and that similar notices had been issued earlier. Therefore, they contended that invoking the extended period of limitation was not justified.
The two member bench comprising R.Muralidhar ( Judicial Member ) and K.Anpazhakan ( Technical Member ) noted that the denial of CENVAT credit in this appeal was based on multiple notices issued using the extended period of limitation. It observed that these notices were issued separately due to audit objections.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, the tribunal held that once a demand was raised using the extended period, another demand could not be issued for the same issue in a later period. Therefore, it concluded that the demands in the subsequent notices were not sustainable.
In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
