9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty. Further, the appellant has also not strictly followed the procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the absence of clear proof of payment of duty after re-processing of defective goods, it will be difficult for me to give a concrete finding on the said issue; but as far as extended period of limitation is concerned, the appellant has shown the defective goods returned in RG 23A Part-I and has been regularly filing monthly returns before the department and the department has not raised any objection and only during the course of audit conducted by AG Audit (H.P.) during 06.09.2003 to 29.10.2003 it has been pointed out that the appellant has wrongly taken the Cenvat Credit; and thereafter the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant during the material period was engaged in the manufacture of Quartz Analog Wrist Watch Movements falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under a valid central excise registration. The appellant was availing Cenvat Credit on the inputs to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of their finished products. During the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the material on record. 4.1 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, Cenvat Credit was admissible to the appellant in relation to the goods which have been rejected and received back from the buyer for re-processing. He further submits that as soon as the goods received back from the buyer being defective, as per the various invoices the date and quantity of Watch Components, being returned on account of defect, were mentioned, the appellant had shown the defective goods returned to the factory in relevant pages of RG 23A Part-I, wherein the appellant had reflected entries of receipt thereof and subsequent issuance to the production area for manufacture of finished p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CCE, Meerut 2001 (135) ELT 1420 (Tri. Del.) CCE vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd (2024) 19 Centax 46 (Cal.) Medisray Laboratories P. Ltd vs. Commr of CGST, Kolhapur 2019 (369) ELT 717 (Tri. Mumbai) 4.3 The learned Counsel further submits that the observations made by the AG Audit (H.P.) during audit of the records were within the knowledge of the department from the date of conclusion of the audit for the financial years 2001 to 2003 and the department did not issue the show cause notice for more than three years and further the impugned show cause notice was issued without any investigation conducted by the department from the date of conclusion of audit. He further submits that it has been consistently held by various Courts that when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been able to establish that the same were cleared on payment of duty. Further, the appellant has also not strictly followed the procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the absence of clear proof of payment of duty after re-processing of defective goods, it will be difficult for me to give a concrete finding on the said issue; but as far as extended period of limitation is concerned, I find that the appellant has shown the defective goods returned in RG 23A Part-I and has been regularly filing monthly returns before the department and the department has not raised any objection and only during the course of audit conducted by AG Audit (H.P.) during 06.09.2003 to 29.10.2003 it has been pointed out that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. 8. Further, I find that when the audit was conducted in year 2003, the entire information was within the knowledge of the department from the date of conclusion of the audit, but in spite of that, the show cause notice was issued after a gap of three years without any further investigation conducted by the department from the date of conclusion of audit. It has been consistently held by various Courts that when the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the department, the extended period for raising the demand cannot be applied. In the case of Modipon Fibre Co. (cited supra), it has been held that extended period is not invokable for demanding duty for the period subsequent to acquiring knowledge by the Revenue about facts suppresse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
