9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment on 03.01.2013 and 04.01.2013, which had been duly reciprocated in good faith by the appellant by accepting and filing its December 2012 ER-1 return which remains undisputed. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The appellant had reversed the unutilized CENVAT Credit since it is nowhere disputed, either in the Show Cause Notice or in the Order-in-Original or in the impugned Order as to the availability of excess CENVAT Credit - invocation of extended period not justified. Both Interest u/s 11AA and Penalty u/s 11AC are deleted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act and penalty under Section 11AC ibid. Having not met with success in its first appeal before the first appellate authority, the appellant is in appeal before this forum. 4. During the course of hearing, Shri. C. Seethapathy, Ld. Advocate appeared for the assessee and Shri. R. Subramaniyan, Ld. Department Representative (DR) appeared for the Revenue. 5.1 The contentions of the Ld. Advocate are broadly summarized as under : (i) The appellant has been filing its monthly ER-1 returns regularly, which are duly audited; (ii) The appellant voluntarily reversed the alleged irregular CENVAT Credit on being pointed out as early as December 2012; (iii) The Show Cause Notice does not allege any suppression or fraud or miss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wledge of the Department only after the verification conducted by the internal audit wing of the Department on 03.01.2013 and 04.01.2013, which had been duly reciprocated in good faith by the appellant by accepting and filing its December 2012 ER-1 return which remains undisputed. 8.1 It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant had reversed the unutilized CENVAT Credit since it is nowhere disputed, either in the Show Cause Notice or in the Order-in-Original or in the impugned Order as to the availability of excess CENVAT Credit. 8.2 From the above, I find strength in the contention of the Ld. Advocate that the Notification of extended period of limitation was bad for which I find it useful to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court." 9.1 I find from the documents furnished along with the appeal memo that the appellant, in its response to Show Cause Notice, had categorically submitted that the ineligible CENVAT Credit was never utilized, rather the same was available as balance in its CENVAT Credit Account and that as of February 2016, the excess balance amount to the tune of ₹ 42,80,511/- was lying in its CENVAT Credit. 9.2 On a perusal of both Order-in-Original as well as the impugned Order, I find that the above categorical statement has neither been controverted nor examined or confronted by both the authorities. On these above facts, I find that the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Puducherry Vs. CESTAT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
