The Commissioner Of Central Excise v. M/S. City Lubricants Pvt. Ltd.,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CEA No.170 of 2017 Date:16.11.2017 Between:

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur Commissionerate (presently Nellore Commissionerate) ..... Appellant And:

M/s City Lubricants Pvt Ltd., Nellore.

....Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Mr. M.V.J.K.Kumar Senior Standing Counsel for Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax The Court made the following:

CVNR, J & CKR, J CEA.No.170 of 2017 Dated:16.11.2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order, dated 26.8.2016, of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.E/362/2008, raising the following substantial questions of law.

"(i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in deciding the eligibility of input tax credit on LSHFHSD to M/s City Lubricants when LSHF and HSD are different in nature?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in deciding that the assessee has not made any misdeclaration. Hence, the issue is hit by limitation, when the assessee had clearly misdeclared and his mens rea is established?"

As regards the first substantial question of law, since the Tribunal has concurred with the view of the Revenue that the respondent-assessee is ineligible for claiming the input tax credit on LSHF-HSD, the said question of law does not arise for consideration in this appeal.

As regards the second substantial question of law, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty on the ground that for a particular period, there was no misdeclaration by the respondent-assessee, and that the levy of penalty for the subsequent period is barred by limitation.

CVNR, J & CKR, J CEA.No.170 of 2017 Dated:16.11.2017 Having carefully considered the above-reproduced reasons assigned by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to differ with the same. Therefore, the substantial question of law raised in ground No.21(ii) of the memorandum of grounds is answered against the Revenue.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM 16th November 2017 DR