9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that they are taking recredit of the amount and did so by entry no. 940 dated 12.06.2006. It is not in dispute that the monthly excise return of June 2006 was filed with the Range authorities in time indicating therein the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant. - despite such clear intimation and information from the appellant s side in May 2006, revenue authorities issued a show-cause notice on 25.03.2011 invoking the extended period for seeking reversal of the amount of ₹ 3,94,950/- which, in my view, is blatantly time barred. The allegations in the show-cause notice are also very bland inasmuch it only said that the assessee deliberately suppressed the fact of recredit which is in contravention of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs on 19.12.1998, which was done under protest. It is his submission that from January 1999 to January 2006, appellant had written various reminders to the authorities for allowing them to take re-credit as Cenvat credit availed was legal and legitimate. He would submit that none of the correspondence was responded to by the lower authorities. It is his submission that the Adjudicating Authority in this case has directed the appellant to produce various records for coming to a conclusion that credit availed by the appellant at the first instance was eligible could not be done as there was no show-cause notice for denying the Cenvat credit availed initially and that the documents/records were lost in the flood which occurred in Mumbai in J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were asked to reverse the modvat credit which they have reversed and requested the Superintendent to allow them recredit as they were eligible to do so as per Notification 25/96-CE. The said letter was followed by various letters, last one being 27.01.2006, under which they also requested the departmental authorities to grant them permission for availing recredit of the amount of ₹ 3,94,950/- 9. I find from the record that except for one letter dated 17.08.2005 from the Superintendent of Central Excise directing the appellant to produce original copy of RG23A part II, no other information was sought. I also find from the records in response to the letter dated 17.08.2005, appellant informed the Range officer that original RG23A pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
