TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice was issued on 28.4.2008 invoking extended period of limitation alleging that they had availed inadmissible Cenvat Credit of Rs.2,11,684/- and Education Cess of Rs.4,233/- and the same were liable to be recovered from them. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved, the Respondent had filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed their appeal on the ground of limitation. Hence, Revenue is in appeal. 3. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the respondent had availed cenvat credit wrongly on various input service, the details of such input services were not disclosed by them in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to evade payment of duty. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Jaipur I Vs. Pushp Enterprises reported in 2011 (22) STR 299 (Tri.-Del.), Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Medicaps Ltd. reported in 2011 (24) STR 572 (Tri.-Del.). 4.2 The ld. Advocate distinguishing the judgment in Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. case (cited supra) referred to by the Ld. A.R, has submitted that the issue involved in the said case was for computation of the period of one year or five years from the date of detection of fraud, collusion etc. as prescribed under Section11A(1) of CEA,1944. The principle of law laid down by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the said case is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which credit was availed and the respondents were under a bonafide belief that the credit of service tax paid by the service provider on the said input services were available to them as credit, no suppression on the part of the respondent could be sustained. In my opinion, the said reasoning is sound and in consonance with the principle of law laid by this Tribunal. I find that this Tribunal in similar circumstances, in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Jaipur I Vs. Pushp Enterprises (cited supra), had observed as under : 10. In these cases, there is no dispute about the fact that the ER-I Returns had disclosed the availment of Cenvat Credit but since there is no requirement for enclosing the invoices or giving the details of such cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of duty. When the respondents have reflected the amount of credit availed by them in their monthly returns, it cannot be said that there was any positive act of suppression on mis-statement on their part. As such, we are of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held a part of the demands as barred by limitation. 7. I agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate for the respondent that the principle of law laid down in the case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra), relates to computation of time limit of one year or five years prescribed under the provisions of Section 11A (1) of CEA,1944 after detection of suppression of facts, misstatement etc. while issuing Show Cause Notice for recovery of duty. In that case, suppre....