9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was entitled to use the cenvat credit for payment of duties of their final product even during the period of default. Time limitation - Held that:- The appellant debited their cenvat credit account at the instance of the visiting officers in December, 2007. Such entries made by the appellant were indicated to their Range Officer as well. No objection was raised by the Revenue at that point of time. A show cause notice issued after a period of 3-4 years by invoking the extended period cannot be uphold - As such apart from the merits of the case, the demand is also barred by limitation. Penalty - Held that:- It is seen that a further demand to the tune of ₹ 9,651 and of ₹ 25.158/- stands confirmed which were also de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay duty and file the ER-1 return without any objection raised by the Revenue. 3. Subsequently, Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as the appellant had defaulted in payment of duty during the relevant period, they were not in a position to use the cenvat credit for payment of duty subsequently in terms of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules and accordingly initiated proceedings against them by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 24.03.2011, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The notice proposed to recover the said amount of duty which already stands paid by them from their cenvat credit on the ground that the same should have been debited from their PLA account. 4. The notice culminated into an order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount at the instance of the visiting officers in December, 2007. Such entries made by the appellant were indicated to their Range Officer as well. No objection was raised by the Revenue at that point of time. A show cause notice issued after a period of 3-4 years by invoking the extended period cannot be uphold. As such apart from the merits of the case, we also note that the demand is barred by limitation. 7. From the impugned order, it is seen that a further demand to the tune of ₹ 9,651 and of ₹ 25.158/- stands confirmed which were also debited by the appellant from their Cenvat Credit account. Inasmuch as the said demand is accepted by the appellant, we find no reasons to set aside the same. However, penalty on the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
