9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be alleged that appellant has willfully suppressed the fact with intent to evade payment of duty. For the period April 2017 to June 2017 appellant did not file their ER-1 returns, therefore, for the said period extended period of limitation is rightly invoked by the adjudicating authority. Conclusion - i) If there is minor discrepancy in the documents for availment of Cenvat credit it cannot be alleged that appellant has willfully suppressed the fact with intent to evade payment of duty. ii) The demand pertaining to extended period of limitation except for the period April 2017 to June 2017 is not sustainable. Therefore, the appellant is liable to reverse the ineligible Cenvat credit for the period April 2015 to June 2017 along with inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teel and Power Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Raipur - 2016 (8) TMI 632 - CESTAT New Delhi. Therefore, the demand pertaining to extended period of limitation is to be dropped. 4. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative submitted that as appellant did not provide the required documents at the time of investigation itself. Therefore, it amounts to suppression of facts. Consequently, Cenvat credit is rightly denied to the appellant. 5. Heard the parties. 6. In this case, it is not disputed by the learned Authorized Representative that for the period April 2015 to March 2017 appellant is filing their ER-1 returns which is evident from the show cause notice itself. If there is minor discrepancy in the documents for availment of Cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fact and the credit is bonafidely taken in terms of their understanding of the legal provision. She also relied on certain decided cases to support the claim that any detection by routine audit cannot result in demand for invoking extended period alleging fraud etc. 3. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. Examining the question of time bar it is seen that the appellants availed the disputed credits during April 2009 to September 2010. These credits were reflected in all their records and statutory returns filed with the Department. The credit was found to be ineligible upon scrutiny by the officers of audit. The allegation of fraud, suppression, wilfull misstatement with intend to evade payment of duty has to have some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
