9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pdt.(AR) for the Revenue Shri Sanjay Bhoumik, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary A Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2011 was issued proposing to deny the Cenvat Credit on M.S.Bars, M.S.Angles, CTD Bars, C.R. Coils, M.S. Channels etc. classifiable under chapter 72 and 68 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat credit of ₹ 14,73,790/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit. By the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. Hence, Revenue filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on these items were referred to the Larger Bench, which was decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd.[2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB)]. The ld.Counsel referred to the case laws as under:- (a) Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2016 (332) E.L.T. 356 (Tri.-Del.)] (b) Commissioner of C.Ex., Cus. S.T., Bilaspur v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2017 (347) E.L.T. 3 (Chattisgarh)] (c) I Aarti Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. S.T., Surat-II [2016 (335) E.L.T. 775 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] (d) Bhushan Steel Strips Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raigad [2008 (223) E.L.T. 517 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (e) Vandana Global Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) held that the expression suppression has been used in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act accompanied by very strong word as fraud or Collusion and therefore, has to be construed strictly. Mere omission to give correct information is not a suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. The incorrect statement cannot be equated with wilful misstatement. Similarly, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore v. Karnataka Agro Chemicals 2008 (227) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) held that it is well settled that mere non-declaration is not sufficient to invoke the larger period. Some positive act of suppression is required for invoking larger period of lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
