9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant had complied with the conditions of Rule 6(3)(ii) of CCR, 2004, the amount of 5%/6% of the exempted products sought to be recovered in the SCN cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No.11369 of 2015 -SM - Final Order No.A/13856/2017 - Dated:- 22-12-2017 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate for the Appellants Shri Sameer Chitkara, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra This is an Appeal filed against the Order-in-Original No.BHR-EXCUS-000-COM-001-15-16 dated 20.5.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Bharuch. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods cleared, but proceeded further observing that the amount of credit reversed by them was not in accordance with the formula prescribed under Rule 6(3A) (c)(iii) of CCR, 2004. It is his contention that even though the Audit had raised the query on the issue of non-compliance with the procedure laid down under the provisions of Rule 6(3)(ii) (iii) of CCR, 2004, but they have replied to the said query submitting thereunder their letter of intimation exercising option to reverse the proportionate credit and the quantum of proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to exempted products required to be reversed by them. In the show cause notice, no allegation has been leveled on the correctness of the quantum of CENVAT credit reversed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T credit availed on various input services used in the exempted products, hence, no fact had been suppressed from the knowledge of the Department nor misdeclared. Consequently, invoking larger period of limitation is bad in law. 5. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. The demand notice was issued to the Appellant for recovery of 5%/6% of the value of the exempted goods cleared during the relevant period October 2009 to October 2013, alleging non-compliance with the provision of Rule 6(3(ii) (iii) of CCR, 2004.The said allegation was based on Audit observation conducted during the period March 2012. Consequent to the said Audit report, the Appellant thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute the validity of the order of the Tribunal on the grounds decided by the Commissioner, but on grounds, which were not subject matter of the show cause notice. In the show cause notice, the assessee was not called upon to state as to whether the services of Consulting Engineers and Banking and other Financial Services are input services of the respondent or as to whether the capital goods were used for providing output services provided by the respondent viz. Port Services , etc. Evidently therefore, in the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on grounds which were never subject matter of the show cause notice. Under the circumstances, in the light of the settled legal position as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
