9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces along with returns. Thus, there was a suppression of fact and extended period of limitation is invoked. It is a well settled principle that to allege suppression, it must be shown that something which has to be disclosed by the assessee has not been disclosed. In this case, there is no requirement in the E.R 1 returns to give invoice wise details of CENVAT Credit availed. There is also no requirement of providing copies of invoices along with E.R 1 returns. Therefore, it cannot be held that the appellant had suppressed the facts from the department - Violation of rule 9(1) is established but there is no evidence of intent to evade. Therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. There is no doubt that there was contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 9 (1) of CCR 2004, CENVAT Credit could be taken by the assessee only within six months from the date of issue of invoices. On being pointed out, the respondent reversed the CENVAT amount in their CENVAT account and reflected the same in their ER1 returns in the month of April 2016. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 02.12.2016 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation demanding to recover the CENVAT credit of the aforesaid amount along with interest. It was also proposed to appropriate the amount already reversed by them towards demand as also proposed to impose penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After following due process, the original authority confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee have not intimated to the department for utilizing the CENVAT Credit on the above said amount and even in the ER.1 returns filed by them from time to time. The fact was detected only after verification of the records by the Central Excise Officers. The credit taken by the assessee appears to be irregular in terms of Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and proviso 5 of Rule 4(7) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Even then, it appears that the assessee has taken CENVAT Credit with an intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, it appears that the assessee suppressed the facts from the knowledge of department and contravened the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made there under with an intent to evade payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the imposition of penalty on the ground that once extended period of limitation is invoked, penalty cannot be set aside, I proceed to decide this question of extended period of limitation. It is not in dispute that the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit in contravention of Rule 9(1) of CCR 2004 as it stood during the relevant period. They did not submit invoices for details of CENVAT Credit availed in their E.R 1 returns. The show cause notice alleges that this amounts to suppression of facts. It is a well settled principle that to allege suppression, it must be shown that something which has to be disclosed by the assessee has not been disclosed. In this case, there is no requirement in the E.R 1 returns to give invoice wise details of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
