2012 (8) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngh   This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Order dated 13.2.12 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were availing Cenvat credit on inputs received from 100% EOU. As per provisions of Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of inputs received from 100% EOU with effect from 1.3.2006, Cenv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The amount of Rs. 6,95,541/- was deposited by the appellants which was appropriated by the original authority. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner(Appeals) was also rejected. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in this case the show-cause notice has been issued to them beyond the period of limitation of one year and the demand is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....UM, (2) Shreya Pets Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2009(240)ELT 408; (3) CCE & ST Daman vs. M/s.Cello Plasto Tech 2011-TIOL-1707-CESTAT-AHM and (4) M/s. Tyche Industries Ltd. Kakinada (AP) vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam 2010-TIOL-810-CESTAT-Bang. Since the issue was settled by these decisions of CESTAT, there is no reason for invoking the extended period in their case. He also pointed out that though the ame....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lower authorities. 5. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants are mainly contesting the impugned order on the ground of limitation. It is the fact that the show-cause notice in this case was issued on 30.3.2010 demanding the cenvat credit for the period May, 2007 to October, 2008 i.e. beyond the period of one year. The appellants were relying on the decisions in the case of Emcure ....