9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent had conducted an audit of the Appellant unit (pre- 2006) and scrutinized the ER 1 return filed for the month of August 2005 wherein the Appellant had availed CENVAT credit in respect of the said invoices issued by Delicious Trade Links Private Limited, and this fact is also recorded in Show Cause notice dated 06/09/2006. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- In this case the entire facts were within the knowledge of the Revenue Department and there is no suppression of material facts from the Department. On the contrary the relevant facts and information were known to the Revenue Department by the ER 1 filed and during course of its audit specifically concerning CENVAT credit. Despite this, the Revenue Department issued the subsequent Show Caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise return in Form ER-1 filed for the month of August 2005 on 12/09/2005. This ISD invoice, amongst other service invoices ,included five debit notes of Delicious Trade Links Private Limited bearing numbers (1) DTL/PCBL/06/2004-05 dated 05/10/2004, (2) DTL/PCBL/07/2018-19 dated 12/10/2004, (3) DTL/PCBL/08/2004-05 dated 24/11/2004, (4) DTL/PCBL/09/2004-05 dated 10/12/2004 and (5) DTL/PCBL/10/2004-05 dated 04/01/2005. 4. Central Excise Revenue Audit (CERA) was conducted at the Appellant's premise (Durgapur) when it was noted that the ISD invoices issued by the Head Office to the Appellant unit was defective, as these did not contain the description of the input service, name of the input service provider, etc. Pursuant to the CERA Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said authority. This case concerns CENVAT Credit distributed by the Head Office to the Durgapur unit vide ISD invoice no. PCBL/Input Credit/02/05-06 dated 31/08/2005 which the department disputed and disallowed. It is his submission that the ISD invoice through which the Appellant had claimed credit on the said invoices is the subject matter of parallel proceedings, where the Ld. Commissioner, Central Excise, Bolpur Commissionerate had confirmed disallowance previously of the entire CENVAT Credit availed on the basis of ISD invoice therefore, the invoices of Delicious Trade Links Private Limited which forms the basis of the present proceedings and appeal are already part of an ongoing proceeding. Thus, the department cannot again allege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice dated 02/07/2008 by invoking extended period is bad-in-law and barred by limitation. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:- (i) Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)] (ii) Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited v. CCE [2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC)] (iii)Remark Flour Mills Private Limited v. State of Gujarat [2018 (12) GSTL 481 (Guj)] (iv)Future Focus Infotech Private Limited v. CCE [2018 (18) GSTL 441 (T-Chennai)] 9. The Ld. DR for the Revenue Department reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He argues that the Appellant had availed CENVAT credit on invoices issued after 10/09/2004 by Delicious Trade Links Private Limited, in respect of services received prior to 10/09/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
