2014 (3) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice has brought the appellant to the scope of allegation. But that does not throw light whether the arithmetical calculation should imput the appellant to the grave of charge of suppression. Said para also does not throw light whether there was any intention to evade which is essential condition of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 when the appellant says that part of the demand is time-bar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Learned counsel states that inadmissibility of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 3(7) and Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 needs to be brought to the notice of the appellant for defence. But that was not brought out. Therefore, in all fairness unless appellant is exposed to the calculation aspect of inadmissibility it would cause prejudice to it. 2. Revenue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant to the ambit of penalty. But Revenue opposes such proposition. Appellant counters the opposition on the ground that part of the demand is time-barred and penalty is not imposable. 5. When the show cause notice is perused, it throws light that only allegation therein is that excess credit was taken. No doubt, Para 9 of the show cause notice has brought the appellant to the scope of al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X