9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is engaged in the manufacture of rough forging under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is seen that the said goods were cleared by them to ordnance factory under the cover of Central Excise invoices. The said goods were not found to be as per technical specifications of the ordnance factory, the same were returned to the appellant on the basis of Nominal Issue Vouchers . As per the appellants, the said vouchers raised by the ordnance factories contained the requisite information including the details of the Central Excise invoices under which the goods were earlier removed by the appellants. The Excise invoices were also returned by the ordnance factory along with vouchers. 2. On return of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea on limitation stands also rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the fact of availing credit on the basis of Nominal Issue Voucher has not been disclosed to their Range Central Excise authorities. 4. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Hitesh Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi reported in 2009 (243) E.L.T. 419 as also on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Jindal Photo Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Order No. A/1496/2009/WZB/AHD [2009 (247) E.L.T. 730 (Tribunal)] and Tribunal s decision in the case of BAPL Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 587. The ratio of all above decisions is to the effect that as the provisions of Rule 16 allows the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the month of November 2004. In fact, Show Cause Notice stand issued on the ground that scrutiny of ER-I return for the month November 2004 revealed that noticee had availed credit on the basis of invalid documents. As such, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the basis of ER-I return filed for the month of November 2004. In such a scenario, no suppression or mis-statement can be attributed to the appellant with an intent to evade payment of duty. The notice having been raised beyond the normal period of limitation has to be held as barred by limitation. 6. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
