9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,31,366/- - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/249/2010/-EX[SM] - Final Order No. 71159/2016 - Dated:- 4-11-2016 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is filed by the appellant, M/s Denso In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PPL/NOIDA/2009 dated 29/10/2009. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for recalculation in respect of Cenvat credit of ₹ 28,10,861/-. Further, out of Cenvat credit of ₹ 7,31,366/-, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Cenvat credit on various input services to the total amount of ₹ 4,58,891/-. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that Cenvat credit amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 7,31,366/-. He has further submitted that at Para 8 of the said Show Cause Notice it is stated that the Show Cause Notice is issued by invoking proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He has submitted that the Show Cause Notice was issued much beyond the normal period of limitation with reference to the date Revenue had knowledge of the issue on 21/06/2006. He h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that part of the Show Cause Notice which deals with proposal for denial of Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 7,31,366/-. 4. The ld. D. R. has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find force in the arguments put forth by the ld. Counsel for the appellant. I also find that there are no allegations in the Show Cause Notice that information req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
