9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be attributed to suppression of facts, when proper records have been maintained of returned goods – No clandestine removal so demand raised in SCN after two years is time-barred X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and of which they had taken the credit at the time of return of the goods. The above discrepancy was subsequently pointed out by the Central Excise authorities, who opined that the manufacturer had to reverse the entire credit of duty taken at the time of receipt of the goods in their factory. In these circumstances, the differential amount of duty was debited by the manufacturer, suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile filing RT-12 returns, it was not disclosed by the appellant that the credit was availed on the basis of supplementary invoices. As such there was suppression on the part of the appellant. As regards the appellant's contention that the Department, in any case, became aware of the fact on 13-9-2002, ld. DR submits that investigations took a longer period and as such it took time for the Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit was availed by the appellant on records and monthly returns were filed by them, enclosing the said invoices. The statement dated 13-9-2002 of the appellant's authorized signatory clearly brought the above fact on record that the Cenvat credit of Rs. 8,11,225/- was availed by them on the basis of supplementary invoices. In spite of that the Revenue took about two years to issue the show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
