9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransportation. As regards the admissibility of the outward transportation, there were plethora of litigation and there were conflicting judgments - the issue involved grave interpretation of law. For this reason also, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant. The demand is not sustainable on time bar - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/86236/15 - A/86243/2018 - Dated:- 4-4-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Ms. Sujata S. Melekar, Advocate for Appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The issue involved is the admissibility of the CENVAT Credit on outward transportation availed in the month of March, 2008. 2. Ms. Sujata S Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though Audit was conducted but the appellants have not disclosed to the Department regarding the availment of CENVAT Credit in respect of outward transportation. It came to the notice of the Department only when information was called for in 2010. Therefore, there is suppression of facts on part of the appellant. Therefore, the extended period has rightly been invoked. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) CCE, Chennai Vs. Sundaram Brake Linings - 2010 (19) STR 172 (Tri-Chennai) (b) Maharashtra Scooters Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II - 2015-TIOL-2016-CESTAT-MUM 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Since the appellant is not disputing the merit of the case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cement Ltd. 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX decided finally the issue of CENVAT Credit on outward transportation. Therefore, the issue involved grave interpretation of law. For this reason also, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant. 4.2 As regards the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of Sundaram Brake Linings (supra) relied upon by the learned AR submitting that only because the audit was conducted, the charge of suppression cannot be rejected, I find that in the present case it is not the only issue that audit was conducted, but show-cause notice also not made any charge of suppression of facts. Moreover the issue involved interpretation of law, conflicting judgments available and issue travelled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
