9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat In the returns it is clearly mentioned that they availed credit under the aforesaid rules. The audit partly accepted the same - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/30425/2017 - Final Order No. A/31259/2017 - Dated:- 9-8-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Sh. Rajendran, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. P. S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-001-APP-150-16-17 dated 10.03.2017. 2. Relevant facts that arises for consideration are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sulphuric acid on job work basis had taken CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the outward transportation of waste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case in hand, the clearances are made of waste arising during the manufacturing of sulphuric acid. On limitation it is his submission that the audit party visited the premises during the period 5 th April, 2011 to 7th April, 2011 and under took the audit of the records for the period April, 2009 to February, 2011 wherein there is no objections raised to the availment of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on outward transportation. It is his submission that the show case notice is issued based upon a subsequent audit objection; this audit was conducted by the audit team on 20th May, 2013 to 15th June, 2013 for the period March, 2011 to May, 2013. It is his submission that second audit objection cannot be the reason for demanding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellants specifically indicates that they had audited the records for the period March, 2011 to May 2013, hence show cause notice relying upon the second audit note invoking extended period for demand of CENVAT credit for period in question seems to be blatantly time barred, more so when the first audit has not pointed out this anomaly despite checking the records for availment of CENVAT credit. 9. The above said view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Vs. MTR Foods Ltd. , [2012 (282) ELT 196 (Kar.)]. The ratio of the said judgment is in paragraph No. 4 which I gainfuly reproduce. 4. As is clear from the material on record, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
