9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs - HELD THAT:- Since the proposed action regarding reversal was contemplated, the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are sought to be invoked for raising the demand and recovery. The provision of Section 11A inter alia provides for a period of limitation within which the notices are supposed to be issued to make the recoveries and provides that the action of recovery has to be initiated within six months/2 years from the date of notice depending upon the facts whether it is a case falling under Sub-Section 1 or Sub-Section 2 respectively. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that contrary to this statutory time limit, the respondents have now revived the inquiries after more than a decade and the action would apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving been engaged in manufacturing excisable goods. The excise returns filed by it for the period July 2010 to June 2011 were audited by respondent No.2 which is the Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Aurangabad. He found that the petitioner was not entitled to the Cenvat Credit which it had availed of. It was served with separate show cause notices which were responded to by the petitioner. The information can be collated as under : Sr. No. Matter Show cause notice date Replied on Second notice date Personal hearing notice 1. WP No.6757/2022 11.07.2011 04.08.2011 06.01.2022 2. WP No.6761/2022 07.09.2009 09.11.2009 06.01.2022 3. WP No.6760/2022 18.12.2008 13.04.2009 14.01.2022 4. WP No.6762/2022 07.09.2009 09.11.2009 19.01.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India; 2022-VIL-244-BOM-ST vii Conventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Anr.; W.P. No.4082/2022 vide order dated 25.07.2023 7. The learned advocate Mr. Ladda for the respondents referring to the affidavit-in-reply would submit that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner company was served with the show cause notices for reversal of the Cenvat Credit availed by it to which it was not entitled to. He also submits that even the petitioner had promptly responded to the show cause notices but submits that there were peculiar reasons why the inquiries were held up. He would point out that the petitioner company had availed the Cenvat Credit to which it was not enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversal was contemplated, the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are sought to be invoked for raising the demand and recovery. The provision of Section 11A inter alia provides for a period of limitation within which the notices are supposed to be issued to make the recoveries and provides that the action of recovery has to be initiated within six months/2 years from the date of notice depending upon the facts whether it is a case falling under Sub-Section 1 or Sub-Section 2 respectively. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that contrary to this statutory time limit, the respondents have now revived the inquiries after more than a decade and the action would apparently be illegal. Precisely in similar set of fact, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
