9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Cenvat credit - allowability - import of goods through courier - took credit on the photocopies of courier bills of entry - as per Board Circular, No.56/95-Cus-dated 30-05-1995, the appellant ought to have filed the normal Bill of Entry - willful mis-statement and suppression with intent to evade payment of duty - Held that:- the allegation in the show cause notice is that the discrepancy came to light from Private records of the appellant. Apart from this bald statement, there is no proof as to what is the private record verified for details of other entries found in such record. The appellant has stoutly denied this contention and submitted that the fact of availing credit on the strength of postal Bills of Entry (couriers) was within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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, the show cause notice issued invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable, being time barred. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/278/2011 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Judicial Member Smt. A. S. K. Swetha, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, AR for the respondent ORDER [ Order per: Ms.Sulekha Beevi ,C.S ] 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which upheld the order of the Original Authority by which the Cenvat credit taken was disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submitted that the fact of availing credit on the strength of postal Bills of Entry(Courier) was within the knowledge of the department by way of monthly ER-I returns and the Rule 7 statement furnished to the department. That therefore, there was no suppression at all. The allegation that the irregularity was detected from the private records of the appellant is totally incorrect. She argued that the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Against this, the Learned AR Shri N.Jagadish submitted that in the Rule 7 statement, the appellant has mentioned only BE denoting normal bill of entry, instead of mentioning the same as BE-Courier . That, this act itself is willful mis-statement. Further, that even after getting sufficient opportunity, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntered by the revenue contending that the appellant ought to have stated courier Bills of Entry instead of simply mentioning as BE and there by has deliberately misled the department with intent to evade payment of duty The fact of availing credit on Bills of Entry has been disclosed by appellants in their ER-I return along with Rule 7 statement. Though they have photocopies of the documents, due to lapse of time they are now unable to produce authenticated copies. The Cenvat Credit Rules do not prescribe any procedure for noting down as postal/.courier bills of entry. It is the Board of circular that prescribed that in case credit is availed on courier BE, the assessee has to file normal BE for availing credit. Therefore, it can be seen th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
