9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s job. If the assessing officer did not do his job, it does not mean that the assessee has suppressed anything willfully or mis-stated.
The demand and penalty cannot be sustained on the ground of limitation itself. There is no need to examine the merits of the case as the entire demand is time barred.
Conclusion - The assessing officer's failure to scrutinize the returns properly did not constitute willful suppression by the appellant.
Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of 5 years for recovery of wrong availment of such Cenvat credit of Rs. 21,822/- is rightly invokable in this case in terms of Rule 14 (1) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11 A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Also, for contravention of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the Noticee is liable to penalty in terms of Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944". 3. In his order-in-original the Joint Commissioner had not recorded any grounds for invoking extended period of limitation, but in so far as the imposition of penalty under section 11AC is concerned, he recorded as follows : - "18.3 On going through the aforementioned provisions, it is quite evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoking larger period of limitation alleging suppression of facts under which the demand was raised for the period March 2016 to June 2017. This is a well settled legal proposition that on the basis of audit objection demand cannot be raised invoking larger period of limitation. Hence, the demand was time barred being beyond the period of two years from the relevant date in terms of the provisions laid down under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In this regard the relevant part of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is reproduced as under :- "RULE 14. Recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken or erroneously refunded. -- (1) (i) Where the CENVAT credit has been taken wrongly but not utilised, the same shall be recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,-- (a) the Central Excise Officer shall, within [two years] from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been so levied or paid or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice" Since the appellants have filed all their returns well within the time frame and all the transactions are mentioned in their business records including balance sheets under such circumstances extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting of appellant's records. Had the department of Audit Team not taken up the Auditing, the evasion of Tax would have remained unnoticed. I also find that the appellant neither before the original authority nor in their impugned appeal have adduced any evidence to refute the allegations of willfully suppressing the fact of having taken the Cenvat credit on ineligible goods with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, I find that the appellant's contention of demand being hit by time limitation holds no water, as the fact of "suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty" is present in this case. Hence, invocation of extended period of time is lawful. I also find that the ratio of case laws cited by the appellant is not appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
