9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. Once the department was aware of the procedure followed by the appellant for taking the CENVAT credit subsequently the department cannot allege suppression with intention to evade duty. It is settled law that mere failure to declare the information does not amount to willful mis-declaration or willful suppression. There must be some positive act on the part of the party to establish willful mis-declaration or willful suppression. The entire demand is barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/25727/2013-SM - Final Order No. 20231/2019 - Dated:- 1-3-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Dayananda, CA For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Sharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so proposed to be imposed. The original authority after due processes of law, confirmed the demand with interest under Section 11AB ibid and confirmed equal penalty under Section 11AC ibid. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the appeal on time bar. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (A), the appellant filed appeal before CESTAT, Bangalore and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (A) and dismissed the appeal. Against the decision of the Tribunal, appellant approached the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and the High Court vide its order dated 4.11.2011 condoned the delay and remanded the appeal back to the Commissioner to decide the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore me proof of excise duty paid documents to the extent of ₹ 8,30,068.28 whereas the Commissioner (A) has recorded that excise invoice to the extent of ₹ 5,10,847/- have been produced before him. The appellant has also relied upon the following decisions: CCE vs. Royal Enterprises: 2016 (337) ELT 482 (SC) CCE vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.: 2018 (11) GSTL 126 (Bom.-HC) Roma Henny Security Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi: 2018 (8) GSTL 239 (Del.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that appellant has taken the CENVAT credit on commercial invoices which is not the proper document for taking the CENVAT credit. He further submitted that the appellants have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
