9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the facts available before the CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Pushp Enterprises [2010 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Accordingly, it is held that extended period is not invokable in the present appeal - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/10514/2013 - Order No. A/10920/2015 - Dated:- 30-6-2015 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon ble Member (Technical),J. For the Appellant : Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Gonind Jha, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. PJ-394-395-VDR-I-2012-13 dated 23.01.2013 under which CENVAT credit disallowed by the adjudicating authority has been upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of CENVAT credit on the services availed. Learned AR, therefore, strongly defended invocation of extended period in this case as recorded by the first appellate authority in Para 5.7 of OIA dated 23.01.2013. 4. Herd both sides and perused the case records. The limited issue raised by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant is that there was no suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty or taking wrong credit, therefore, extended period is not applicable. He relied upon the case law of CCE, Jaipur vs. Pushp Enterprises (supra). Para 9 and 10 of this case are reproduced below:- 9. From perusal of the proviso to Section 11A(1) and Section 11AC, it is clear that the criteria for invoking extended period of limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g very well that the same was not admissible, unless there is some evidence in this regard. Moreover when the quantum of service tax credit availed had been disclosed, the officers were always free to inquire from the respondent about details of the same and satisfy themselves about its correctness. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 5. It is observed from the above case laws that CESTAT Delhi, after relying upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Padmini Products vs. CCE [1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC)], held that for invocation of extended period there has to be some evidence that an assessee knew that they were liable to pay duty. That mere f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
