9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced the copies of various returns filed before the Department wherein they have mentioned the cenvat credit availed by them. Further in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant, it can be concluded that extended period has wrongly been invoked. The cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 2,58,144/- is hit by limitation and the remaining amount of ₹ 1,50,604/- is within limitation which is confirmed but the entire penalty is dropped. CENVAT credit on input service tax credit of ₹ 2,81,659/- - Held that:- The credit was taken during December 2015. Further up to September 2014, the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on all the invoices as the said amendment was made applicable from September 2014. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of exempted goods. They had not maintained separate account in respect of inputs, input services which were used in the manufacture of exempted goods and not paid 6% of the value of the exempted goods as per the provisions of Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR. They also availed cenvat credit of ₹ 2,81,659/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Nine only) in respect of input services after the expiry of one year from the date of issue of invoice. A show-cause notice bearing Sl. No. 26/2016-2017/AC Circle dated 02/12/2016 was issued to appellant demanding the 6% reversal on the exempted goods and also proposed to impose equivalent penalty of ₹ 4,08,748/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and the law. He further submitted that substantial demand of cenvat credit is hit by limitation. He further submitted that the show-cause notice is dated 02.12.2016 and was received by the appellant on 12.12.2016 pertaining to the demand for the period from December 2014 to February 2016. He further submitted that the demand for the month from December 2014 to December 2015 amounting to ₹ 2,58,144/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty Four only) is beyond one year from the date of show-cause notice. He further submitted that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case because there is no suppression on the part of the appellant and the appellant has been filing the return regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the date of invoice for availing cenvat credit was introduced in the CCR. He further submitted that this amendment brought in CCR is applicable prospectively and does not apply to invoices dated prior to the date of amendment. He further submitted that the invoices dated from July 2014 and August 2014 amounting to ₹ 1,26,693/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three only), the appellants are entitled to take cenvat credit as it pertains to the invoices prior to the amendment prescribing time limit and with regard to invoices after September 2014 amounting to ₹ 1,54,966/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Six only), the appellant did not contest the same. In support of this, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. Commissioner of C.Ex., Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 509 (Mad. -HC) 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has suppressed the material fact with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore extended period is invoked as the irregular availment of cenvat credit was detected during audit. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Revenue has failed to bring on record any material to show that the appellant has suppressed the material fact with intent to evade payment of duty. Further I find that the appellant has been filing the returns regularly wherein they have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
