2012 (7) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.   2. Learned advocate for the appellants vehemently argued that the show cause notice issued in 02.12.2008 is totally time barred. He submits that the show cause notice has been issued on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the fact of availment of cenvat credit on LDO, since it was never declared to the department by the assessee either in ER-1 returns or by any other way. It was also observed that the documents on which the cenvat credit was availed were never submitted to the department. He submits that the allegation made in the show cause notice is suppression of fact and there is no statutory requirement for submission of invoices on the ba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p; (h) Medico Limited 2011 (274) ELT 463 (Tri. Ahmd.)   3. Learned AR on the other hand submits that ignorance of law can never be an excuse. None of the decisions cited by the learned counsel can be compared to the facts of the present case. In none of the decisions, the issue involved is input on which credit could not have been taken in view of the clear provisions in the Rules. LDO is specifically excluded, by name in the input definition and in such a situation, there cannot be any excuse for the manufacturer to avail credit is not available. In none of the cases an issue like this where the Rule clearly indicated that availment of cenvat credit was considered. Further, he also submits that it cannot said that suppression of fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was no suppression of this fact just because there was no column in ER-1 or no specific requirement of intimating the department or submitting invoice, is not acceptable. Once there is a clear provision and there cannot be any doubt as regards admissibility of cenvat credit, suppression of fact of availment of cenvat credit is established and need not be proved at all. Having noticed (it is settled principle that ignorance of law is no excuse) that the input credit is not available on LDO, if suppression of fact is not to be upheld, appellant at least would be required to show that either they had sought clarification or they had intimated the department, even though it was not required by law. When the credit was clearly not admissible and....