9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the course of manufacture of finished foods during the period from May 2010 to July, 2010. On verification by the audit officers of the Central Excise Department, it was observed that the CENVAT credit taken of the service tax paid on outward transportation of waste chemical was not entitled to them. Accordingly, after issuing a show cause notice and following due process of law, the original authority denied the credit of Rs. 2,12,698/- so taken and imposed a penalty equivalent to the amount of credit denied in terms of Rule 15(2) read with Section 1 IA of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Aggrieved by such an order an appeal was preferred to the First Appellate Authority. Before the First Appellate Authority, appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability by invoking the extended period. It is his submission that the show cause notice in this case has been issued on 31 07.2014 is blatantly time barred. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of lower authorities. 6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, I find this appeal can be disposed of on the point of limitation only. 7. I find from the audit report for the period April 2009 to February 2011, signed by the Additional Commissioner (Audit) indicates that appellants unit was audited by the audit team during the period 5th April, 2011 to 7th April, 2011 and the period for which the records were checked was April 2009 to February, 2011. The said audit rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the material on record, the returns were filed promptly. In the returns it is clearly mentioned that they availed credit under the aforesaid rules. The audit partly accepted the same. It is only in the second audit that they noticed the mistake and initiated proceedings. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts none of the other conditions prescribed in the Proviso exists in this case to extend the period of limitation of 5 years. It is in this background the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority and in restoring the order passed by the original authority. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed." 10. In view of the foregoing, in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
