9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o to Section 11A of CEA, 1944 is not applicable because SCN does not indicate that there was deliberate act of suppression of fact, fraud, mis-statement, etc. - the SCN is hit by limitation, as the proviso to Section 11A for extended period is not invokable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/2176/2012-EX[SM] with E/MISC/70532/2016 - A/70933/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 4-5-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether the show cause notice is barred by limitation and the provisions of extended period of limitation is invocable or not. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is eligible for credit as capital goods. So for the demand of ₹ 2,50,512/- is concerned, the appellant stated that they had discarded two old boiler in the year 2005-06 which were purchased in 1966-67, to expand the capacity of boilers. The scrap sold by the applicant was of the machine/boiler acquired prior to the year 1994 (prior to modvat scheme), on which Modvat/Cenvat credit was not availed. As the Modvat credit scheme on capital goods come into existence in the year 1994-95, thus, there is no question of any Cenvat/Modvat credit being taken on the capital goods sold as scrap during the financial year 2005-06 to 2006-07. Rule 3 (5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 applies in case where the assessee have taken Modvat credit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and on perusal of records, I am satisfied that all the information and transation in question has been recorded in the books of account maintained in the normal course of business. Further, it is admitted fact that upon audit objection the appellant had reversed the appropriate amount under Rule 3 (5A) of CCR, 2004 and had also filed their categorical reply to the objections of audit received by the department on 10 th June, 2008. Thus, there is no case of any suppression or malafide on the part of the appellant. The learned Counsel has also relied on the ruling of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon ble Allahabad High Court have observed that the show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
