9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r case where larger period is invoked for no reason, the Revenue never even whispered that the reversals were never there to allege availing and continue to enjoy any benefit of Cenvat credit. Discernibly, there is no Revenue loss since duty is made good along with interest, not just once - SCN is clearly issued invoking extended period of limitation in a routine manner and without any justification whatsoever for which reason, the impugned order cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. E/177/2012 - FINAL ORDER No. 40663/2019 - Dated:- 11-4-2019 - MR MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER And MR P. DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate, for the appellant Shri Veera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had taken Cenvat Credit of ₹ 41,09,664/- on the capital goods imported under EPCG Scheme on which additional duty of customs had not been paid; Sri Prabhakaran, Excise Officer accepted the mistake of having taken the credit of the Additional Duty of Customs on the basis of warehousing Bills of Entry due to oversight and also for the reason that he was not aware that the goods were brought to factory under EPCG Scheme; As soon as the above wrong availment of credit was brought to the knowledge of the Senior Officers of the Company, the entire Cenvat credit of ₹ 41,09,664/- was reversed in RG23C (Capital Goods) Register vide Sl. No. 763 dated 28.0-6.2007 and intimated to the Department vide letter dated 29.06.2007; The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erating the factum of reversal of credit of ₹ 41,09,664/-, reversal again as per the directions of the authorities to be remitted also through PLA, appellant requested for taking re-credit of the above amount in the month of July 2007 to which, the department did not object, but the Revenue, rather much later, issued SCN dated 01.12.2010. In the above factual matrix, Ld. Advocate submitted that the assessee s request for adjustment of credit, which was not paid or payable on the goods cleared did not amount to suo motto refund and hence did not warrant submission of refund application as it was mere correction. Further, Ld. Advocate seriously contended that SCN dated 01.12.2010 proposing to demand Cenvat credit availed for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e remittance of interest also by the appellants. The Revenue was actively in the picture and in the know of these events by instructing the reversal and also directing the appellant to reverse by remittance in cash. These facts coupled with no allegation as to suppression or fraud etc. in the SCN points out to the bonafides of the appellants. 6. Thus, it is a clear case where larger period is invoked for no reason, the Revenue never even whispered that the reversals were never there to allege availing and continue to enjoy any benefit of Cenvat credit. Discernibly, there is no Revenue loss since duty is made good along with interest, not just once. Therefore on these facts, the principle laid down in the decisions of the Hon ble Apex cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
