9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e eligible notification and, therefore, the portion that was confirmed could not have said to have arisen on account of suppression or mis-representation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 year in terms of the notification, the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2014 become eligible for cenvat credit. I also observed that the notification No. 21/14-ST (NT) dt. 11.7.2014 should be applicable to those cases wherein the invoices were issued on or after 11.7.2014 for the reason that notification was not applicable to the invoices issued prior to the date of notification therefore at the time of issuance of the invoices no time limit was prescribed. Therefore, in respect of those invoices the limitation of six months cannot be made applicable. Moreover, for taking credit there is no statutory records prescribed the assessee s records were considered as account for cenvat credit. Even though the credit was not enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter back and holding that mandatory equal penalty and extended period of 5 years are not attracted. The High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2016 (43) STR. 347 (Kar.) in paragraph 7 and 8 has held as under: 7. It is an admitted fact that the input tax credit was claimed in the return of the assessee from time to time and therefore, it was not a matter for suppression of facts, as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant. 8. Once full facts were disclosed, the normal period of limitation would be one year, whereas the proceedings are initiated after the expiry of a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
