9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. Further, as substantial proposed demand have been dropped by the Adjudicating Authority and also a large amount have been reversed and not contested, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. Penalty also set aside. 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 ..... eriod 1 Chamber of Commerce 371/- 2012-13 2 Soil Test 2,965/- 2012-13 3 Health Insurance & Life Insurance 1,04,645/- 2013-14 4 E-Voting Service 865/- 2013-14 5 Legal services 2,472/- 2013-14 Further penalty of ₹ 55,659/- was imposed being 50% of the amount which was disallowed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 78(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who framed the issues as under:- (i) Whether confirmation of demand alongwith interest and penalty is justified; and (ii) Whether extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has been pleased to disallow the credit with regard to demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has further been observed that the appellant have not disclosed these facts to the Department in any manner and the detection of irregular credit was only during the course of audit and thus, the demand for extended period of limitation is justified. 6. Learned Counsel Shri R. Sudhinder appearing for the appellant states that admittedly appellant have maintained proper records of transaction and filed their ST-3 return regularly. Further, there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellant have not maintained proper records and have suppressed any facts in the periodical returns, which admittedly have been filed regularly. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in holding that the extended period of limitation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
