9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gibility of Cenvat credit. Hence, we find that the allegation of willful suppression with intention to evade is not sustainable in the present case and the show cause notice-cum-demand issued on 12/11/2009 is hit by time bar beyond the normal period. It is seen from the impugned order that from October 2008 to June 2009 (covered by first show cause notice dated 12/11/2009) and during July 2009 to December 2009 (covered by second show cause notice dated 18/03/2010) and for the period January 2010 to June 2010 (covered by third show cause notice dated 03/02/2011), the appellant have reversed Cenvat credit attributable to input services used in relation to manufacture of electricity cleared outside. - show cause notice dated 12/11/2009 is hit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f electricity sold outside. The first notice dated 12/11/2009 covered the period April 2005 to June 2009. The second notice dated 18/3/2010 covered the period of July 2009 to December 2009. The third notice dated 03/2/2011 covered the period of January 2010 to June 2010. These notices were adjudicated by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 10/2/2014. The learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 26,12,59,295/- representing 10% of value of electricity cleared during the period April 2005 to September 2008. He imposed equal penalty on the appellant. He dropped the demand for the period October 2008 to June 2010 finding that the appellant have paid amount representing Cenvat credit attributable to input services used in relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period April 2005 to September 2008 as proposed in the show cause notice dated 12/11/2009 is not legally sustainable. They have been filing monthly returns in form ER-1. During the course of audit in September 2006 the Departmental officers raised the same objection and they have given replies to the same. Further, earlier proceedings were initiated against them by issue of various show cause notices during the period March 1995 to June 1997 on the same issue. The cases were adjudicated vide order dated 17/10/1997 by the Assistant Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit attributable to the inputs used towards manufacture of steam and electricity which is supplied to other units and residential colony. Thus, the appellants insisted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions were done. In 2006 same issue was taken up in audit and there were correspondence discussing the eligibility of Cenvat credit. Hence, we find that the allegation of willful suppression with intention to evade is not sustainable in the present case and the show cause notice-cum-demand issued on 12/11/2009 is hit by time bar beyond the normal period. It is seen from the impugned order that from October 2008 to June 2009 (covered by first show cause notice dated 12/11/2009) and during July 2009 to December 2009 (covered by second show cause notice dated 18/03/2010) and for the period January 2010 to June 2010 (covered by third show cause notice dated 03/02/2011), the appellant have reversed Cenvat credit attributable to input services us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
