9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed against the impugned order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Bhopal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit of Central Excise Duty paid on the inputs and capital goods received in the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submits that the show cause notice issued by the Department is barred by limitation of time, inasmuch as, the period involved in this case is October, 2009, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 02.08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, justifying confirmation of the duty demand. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that since the Audit Officers did not find any stock during their visit to the factory, disallowance of Cenvat Credit in respect of non-availability of stock is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had fraudulent motive in availment of Cenvat Credit in respect of non-availability of subject goods in the factory. Thus, I am of the view that the extended period of limitations in the present case cannot be invoked, justifying confirmation of the Cenvat demand. 7. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant on the ground of limitation alone. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
