9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tus and are availing Cenvat Credit on capital goods, inputs and input services. On verification of the records during the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, it was found that appellant had imported goods through Courier and had taken credit on the Courier Bills of Entry. According to the department as per Board Circular, No.56/95-Cus-dated 30-05-1995, the appellant ought to have filed the normal Bill of Entry and only such documents can be used for taking credit. It was also noticed that the Courier Bill of Entry were mere photocopies. A show cause notice dated 01-04-2009 alleging the above allegations was issued. After adjudication the primary authority confirmed the disallowance of credit of Rs. 2,67,558/- and ordered reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the demand, interest and penalty has been rightly imposed. 5. I have heard both sides and perused the records. 6. It is seen from the records that appellant has sought several adjournments for furnishing the Original documents or certificates to prove the photocopies of Couriers Bills of Entry. They have not been able to furnish necessary evidence to establish that the credit was rightly availed by them. So on merits the appellants have no case and the recovery of credit calls for no interference. 7. It is the case of the appellant that the demand is time barred. The period in dispute is 2004-2005 to 2007-2008. The show cause notice is dated 01-04-2009. The allegation in the show cause notice is that the discrepancy came to light fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deliberate suppression of facts or misled the department, is not tenable. The entire information was available to the department as per ER-I returns and the department could have sought clarification in case of doubt. Further, revenue does not dispute the fact of payment of duty upon the impugned documents. The objection raised is merely that the documents are photocopies. For suppression of facts there must be some positive act with intention to evade payment of duty, which is absent in the present case. Therefore, I am of the view that the show cause notice issued invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable, being time barred. The appellant succeeds on the issue of limitation. 8. In the result, the impugned order is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
