9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant in 2008. On the basis of audit, a letter was written to the appellant by Range office on 21.4.09 to reverse the Cenvat credit along with interest on the items namely, HR sheets, coil, shape and section etc. The appellant vide their letter dated 2.11.2009 replied that these items were used in plant and machinery. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 14.12.2011 was issued to the appellant to deny Cenvat credit on the above said items by invoking extended period of limitation. The show cause notice was contested by the appellant. Both the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat credit to the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant has filed the appeal on merits as well as on limitation against the impugned order bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the limitation period is invokable. Such allegation was not there in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. I find in the show cause notice and impugned order on one side, the Revenue is alleging that appellant has wrongly taken cenvat credit and on the other hand it is alleged that they have suppressed the facts. If it is a case of wrong availment of cenvat credit then question of suppression does not arise. Further in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (supra), the facts of the case are as under: "3.Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merit, we find that a show cause notice was issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o, the allegation against the appellant is that they have availed wrong cenvat credit and action of appellant is suppression of facts. In the show cause notice it was mentioned that the availment of cenvat credit on these items has been explained by the appellant with an evidence and was supported by certificate issued by Chartered Engineer for usage of items in capital goods which both the lower authorities have not accepted. From the above, the only inference can easily be drawn that it is appellants case that the impugned items have been used for fabrication of capital goods and to that extent certificate issued by Chartered Engineer was produced which was doubted by both the lower authorities. Therefore, inference of suppression of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
