9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is not sustainable - SCN is barred by limitation. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by confirming reversal of cenvat credit by the appellant and the payment of interest thereof for the intervening period. - HON BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR.K.ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : Aggrieved from the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of rubber products and availing the benefit of SSI exemption. 2.1 During the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in stock or input contained in works in process and finished goods at the time of opting for SSI exemption benefit. 2.7 For this error, the appellant became liable for payment of duty on 15.07.2000, 07.10.2001, 25.06.2002 and 13.12.2003 and on 31.03.2000, 31.03.2001, 31.03.2002 and 31.03.2003 after which it again started availing the SSI exemption. Although the appellant intimated that upon commencement of every financial year, it would avail the SSI exemption. Thereafter, upon crossing the exemption ceiling, the appellant intimated to the Central Excise Authorities that it would avail the benefit of modvat credit in respect of inputs. 2.8 In the month of July, 2004 during the time of Audit for the period 2002-03 and 2003-04, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time of opting for SSI exemption notification in each year and the same has been intimated by the appellant vide letter dated 9th July, 2004 and the appellant rectified their mistake by reversing cenvat credit on 28.07.2005. He further submits that a show-cause notice has been issued on 18.07.2006 by invoking extended period of limitation. Therefore, the show-cause notice is also barred by limitation. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the discrepancy regarding the reversal of cenvat credit while opting SSI exemption came to the Department at the time of Audit and the appellant reversed the cenvat credit along with inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
