9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not stated what prevented the proper officer from conducting scrutiny of returns and issuing show cause within normal period. The Commissioner (Appeals), in my view has rightly applied the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt Venture Vs CCE, Chandigarh-1 [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] wherein held that mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts Revenue has miserably failed to establish the allegation of suppression of facts. In such circumstances, the demand raised invoking extended period is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/21899/2014 - Final order No.A/30439/2016 - Dated:- 5-5-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision in Vandana Global Ltd., case. The Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills applied the user test and held that credit is admissible on MS items used for fabrication of chimney of D.G. set. 4. The learned AR Sri J.V.S. Chakarvarthy vehemently argued that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not following the judgment in Vandana Global Ltd., case. He submitted that credit is not admissible on MS items, as the photographs were not signed by the Chartered Engineer. That the photographs do not show that steel items were used in the manufacture/fabrication of such machineries. The photographs were taken in assembled condition and these documents would not establish that subject items were used in manufacture/fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Continental Foundation Jt Venture Vs CCE, Chandigarh-1 [2007 (216) ELT 177 (S.C.)]. The Hon ble court in the said case held that mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts. Again in Agro Chemical Case, [2008 (227) ELT 12 (S.C.)] it was held that mere non-declaration is not sufficient for invoking larger period of limitaiton. The respondents here have filed statutory returns and credit statements as required by law. Revenue has no case that credit availed was suppressed. In fact, the show cause notice is based upon the ER-1 returns filed by respondent. Therefore, I am able to conclude that Revenue has miserably failed to establish the allegation of suppression of facts. In such circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
