2019 (2) TMI 755

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to use, the same were cleared in the year 2011-12. While clearing the goods, the goods, the appellant has reversed the credit availed at the time of receipt of the capital goods in the factory, reducing the same @ 2.5% per quarter for the period the credit was availed. Therefore, the computation of the department is incorrect. Besides, there is no suppression of fact as the present demand rela .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ared in the year 2011 after reversing the credit availed on the said capital goods in accordance with Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, reducing it @ 2.5% per quarter. Alleging that the amount reduced in the year 2006 is incorrect, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the credit of ₹ 53,824/- on 7.7.2015 invoking extended period of limitation. On adjudication, the demand was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CE, Hyderabad-III vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. 2013 (298) ELT 541 (Tri.-LB), judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Salem vs. Rogini Mills Ltd. 2011 (264) ELT 367 (Mad.) and the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara 2013 (296) ELT 465 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X