9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice, the demand should be held has barred by limitation. However, proviso to section 11A is part and parcel of section 11A. Merely because it was not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice when the allegation of suppression are clearly specified and the demand of duty is being raised under section 11A, non-mentioning of the specific proviso of section 11A will not the vitiate the proceedings as long as the charges are clearly brought out in the show cause notice. Not only that section 11A, includes the proviso to the said section and the entire section stands mentioned in the show cause notice, it has to be held that the provisos of the said section also get invoked - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. 4084/2010-E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 27/09/10 allowed the appeal and confirmed the demand of ₹ 44,306/- invoking extended period and also imposed penalty of equal amount. It is against this order that the present appeal stand filed. 3. Learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant pleaded that the demand is time barred, as while the Cenvat credit demand is for the period from April 2006 to May 2007, the show cause notice had been issued on 13th February 2009, that the proviso to Section 11A (1) has not been invoked in the show cause notice, that there was no suppression of any relevant information on the part of the appellant and hence there was no justification for invoking the extended period, that the impugned order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.02.2009 and the normal period laid down in Section 11 A of Central Excise Act 1944 is one year from the relevant date and the proviso to Section 11A ibid has also not invoked in the show cause notice. I find force in the contention of assessee and find that in the show cause notice the proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been invoked and therefore the demand in respect of Bill of Entry No. 105005/01.05.06 involving duty amounting to ₹ 44,306/- mentioned at S. No. 7 of the Annexure to Show cause notice is barred by limitation. Accordingly, I hold that demand for recovery of the Cenvat credit of the same i.e. ₹ 44,306/- is time barred and not sustainable. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals), while reversing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice about the act of the respondent of wrong availment of Cenvat credit with intent to evade payment of duty, interest was also demanded under Section 11-AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penal provisions under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were also invoked. Now the very short question remains for consideration is when the grounds for invoking the extended time period, Section 11-A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was mentioned, the demand can be said to as time bar in absence of writing the word proviso and whether the mentioning of Section 11-A will cover the proviso itself. In this regard I find that once the ingredient of invoking the extended period was available and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
