9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory at Vapi having started only in the year 2013-14 merits credence since the same has not been negated by the Revenue. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Revenue has only mechanically alleged suppression on the ground that but for Revenue’s Audit, the same would not have come to light - extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.: E/40696/2018 - Final Order No. 42786/2018 - Dated:- 2-11-2018 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. C. Seethapathy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is a manufacturer of various chemicals and is having factories at three places namely, Vapi, Gujarat and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 7 was inserted with effect from 01.04.2012 vide Notification No. 18/2012-CE (NT) dated 17.03.2012. Secondly, the audit visit was on 23.03.2015 when the Department was fully aware of the facts and the details furnished in the appellant s ER-1 returns that were filed regularly. 4.2 He further submitted inter alia that the appellant s factory at Vapi was started only from 2013-14, the turnover of which was nil during 2011-12 and 2012-13; that the turnover of Vapi and Jammu Kashmir together constituted less than 20% in the years involved; that the service tax is exempted in Jammu Kashmir which implies that there was no question of distributing CENVAT Credit of service tax to Jammu Kashmir; that therefore CENVAT Credit could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much after i.e., nearly 11 months after the audit visit. 8.2 Similarly, the judgement of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai-I Vs. Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. 2017 (353) E.L.T. 454 (Mad.) squarely applies to hold that no suppression could be alleged in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. I also note that the Revenue has only mechanically alleged suppression on the ground that but for Revenue s Audit, the same would not have come to light. This observation, as held by various rulings, would not cover the situation since, much more effort is required to at least suggest, even remotely, that there is an act of suppression. 9. In the light of the above and on the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
