9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pendency of the adjudication of the said show-cause notice, another show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner correcting the computation error in the first show-cause notice and a higher demand has been proposed. However, there are substance in the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant that since in the first show-cause notice extended period of limitation has been invoked and stating the same set of facts which has been repeated in the second show-cause notice for invoking extended period of limitation, cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AP [ 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT] . The matter is remanded to the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit of Rs.66,15,597/- for the period from July 2007 to April 2009; also, in the second show-cause notice it is mentioned that the earlier show-cause notice dated 20.2.2009 be treated as withdrawn. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty of equivalent amount under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The learned advocate Shri Ramesh Ananthan for the appellant submits that on the same issue two show-cause notices have been issued to the appellant both involving extended period of limitation; one by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise on 20.2.2009 alleging excess CENVAT credit taken in respect of Education Cess on the invoices issued by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner submitted that the first show-cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner was withdrawn by the learned Commissioner after revising the method of computation of demand before completion of the adjudication process by the Additional Commissioner. He submits that there is no irregularity in issuing second show-cause notice by the learned Commissioner by withdrawing the first show-cause notice when subsequently it has been brought to the notice of the department that the method of computation of demand limiting it only to the excess credit of Education Cess without proper computation of the demand applying the formula prescribed under Rule 3(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, cannot be held to be beyond the scope of jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant that since in the first show-cause notice extended period of limitation has been invoked and stating the same set of facts which has been repeated in the second show-cause notice for invoking extended period of limitation, cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory case (supra). In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to restrict the adjudication of demand to normal period of limitation. The issues on merit are kept open and the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner to decide the issue on merit. Needless to mention that Principle of Natural Justice be observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
