2017 (5) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t themselves in such case the demand was correctly confirmed. As regard the limitation, the appellant though have transferred certain quantity of inputs for spare parts sale in respect of which credit cannot be retained by the appellant but was not disclosed to the department therefore clear suppression of facts established on the part of the appellant - invocation of extended period justified. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. M.P.S. Joshi, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintedent (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the department has demanded the Cenvat Credit on the input which was believed to have been booked as written of quanti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se period involved is March, 2001 to February, 2002. He submits that prior to insertion of sub rule 5(b) there was no machinery provision for reversal of Cenvat credit in respect of quantitity of input written off, therefore allegation in the show cause notice is not correct and the entire demand is not sustainable. He submits that demand is time bar as appellant have not suppressed any facts from the department. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on following judgments: (a) CCE Navi Mumbai V. Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2011 (272) ELT 161 (Born.) (b) Phillips Electronics India Ltd. V. CCE Pune 2011 (274) ELT 311 (Tri Mumbai (c) CCE, Bangalore - IV. SKF Bearing India Ltd. 2015 (323) ELT 630 (Tri Bangalore) (d) CCE, Pun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. I find that the demand of Cenvat credit of ₹ 15,74,811/- is not on account of quantity written off in the books of account as in fact there is no quantity shown as written off in the books of accounts and the same was not main ground for confirmation of demand. Demand was confirmed on the quantity of inputs cleared for spares parts sale and the same was quantified and informed to the department by the appellant themselves in such case the demand was correctly confirmed. As regard the limitation, I find that appellant though have transferred certain quantity of inputs for spare parts sale in respect of which credit cannot be retained by the appellant but .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X