9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand notice was received on 5.2.2010 for the period January 2005 to February 2005, a part of it being more than 5 years, hence, barred by limitation; this aspect also needs to be scrutinized - appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods mentioned in the respective invoices had been received and used in the manufacturing process , however, the said letter was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. It is his contention that the report of the Range Supdt. dated 16.3.2006 has been obtained by the Appellant subsequent to the adjudication proceeding and also appellate proceeding before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) through RTI application. Therefore, the same could not be placed before the authorities below. He further submits that the present demand spreads over a period of more than 5 years, hence, the demand exceeding the period of 5 years is untenable in law. Ld. Advocate further submits that in the impugned order, penalty has been imposed under Rule 15(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to be addressed is: whether the Appellant had received inputs in their factory against 20 invoices as mentioned in the Annexure - A to the show cause notice and utilised the same in their factory in the manufacture of finished goods, accordingly eligible to credit on the said invoices. It is not in dispute that the said invoices were issued by M/s V.N. Impex, Thane, against whom investigation had been initiated by the Department alleging issuance of fake invoices, without supply of goods as there was no manufacturing facility available in the premises of M/s V.N. Impex. In the process of said investigation, receivers of the inputs were also investigated. The ld. Advocate has placed a communication addressed to the Range Supdt. (Preventiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
