2014 (11) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DER PER: R.K. Singh The appellants have filed the stay application along with appeal against Order-in-Original No. 26/Commr/CEx/BPL-II/2013 dated 24.07.2013 in terms of which a demand of Rs. 4,49,64,397/-was confirmed (alongwith interest and mandatory penalty) on account of the appellants having taken inadmissible Cenvat Credit during the period February 2007 to September 2008 for which the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontractors. They strongly contended that there has been no suppression or wilfull mis-statement and therefore the extended period is not invocable rendering the demand time barred. 3. We have considered the appellants contentions. It is seen that the extended period is sought to be invoked in the Show Cause Notice only on the basis of the following para:       &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t credit amounting to Rs. 5,97,77,722/- is recoverable under Rule 14 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A (i) Central Excise Act, 1944 In the impugned adjudication order, the mandatory penalty (for suppression of facts) has been held to be sustainable on the basis of the following para:           35. As regards noticees p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l the details. The adjudicating authority has held that the noticee was required to declare material facts instead of taking a plea that it was not required to declare or submit details of goods on which Cenvat Credit was taken. The adjudicating authority does not quote any provision of law under which they were required to declare the material facts; the adjudicating authority does not elaborat....