9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant factual materials, I find that the relevant facts were supplied by the assessee to the Department way back in June 2006. Further, facts were supplemented in subsequent letters addressed to the Range Officer. Moreover, the auditors of the Department visited the factory of the respondent and gathered all the necessary facts in August 2007. Surprisingly, the show cause notice in this case came to be issued after one year from August 2007. In this scenario, there is no reason for this Tribunal to interfere with the decision of the lower Appellate Authority on the limitation issue. The Adjudicating Authority merely held that MS rounds, shells, channels, etc. did not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘input’. That author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trength of invoices issued by CWC to Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd. (MSTCL), Kolkata. In a show cause notice issued on 15-9-2008, the Department proposed to recover the above amount of credit for the period from August 2006 to February 2007. This show cause notice was issued on the basis of the facts collected by the auditors of the Department in the first week of August 2007. It invoked the extended period of limitation alleging that the party had suppressed the material facts with intent to avail undue benefit of Cenvat credit. In adjudication of this show cause notice, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty with interest thereon and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on the assessee. The assessee s appeal against the Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions, I note that, though the plea of limitation was not raised by the party before the Adjudicating Authority, it was raised before the Appellate Authority. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the plea of the assessee. In the present appeal, it is not the case of the appellant that it was not open, in law, to the lower Appellate Authority to consider the plea of limitation raised for the first time. I have also found no fetter for the lower Appellate Authority in this regard. On a perusal of the relevant factual materials, I find that the relevant facts were supplied by the assessee to the Department way back in June 2006. Further, facts were supplemented in subsequent letters addressed to the Range Officer. Moreover, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... components/spares/accessories of chimneys and that MS rounds, channels etc. were used in the manufacture of components/spares/accessories of stoves. It was contended that, as chimneys and stoves were capital goods falling under Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the various items used in the manufacture of their components/spares/accessories would qualify to be inputs within the definition of this term under Rule 2(k) read with Explanation 2 thereto. The Explanation referred to by the assessee reads thus: input includes goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer . The Adjudicating Authority merely held that MS rounds, shells, channels, etc. did not fall within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
