2015 (9) TMI 1215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppearing on behalf of the appellant argued that two OIOs were passed by the adjudicating authority denying CENVAT credit where the issues involved are different. It was his case that the present appeal is continuation of OIO No. 24/IOCL/D-IV/VDR-IV/11.82 dated 19.7.2011 which has been decided by a common OIA dated 23.01.2013. Learned Advocate argued that issue involved in the present appeal is admissibility of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Study and Designing of Storm Water drainage development. That these services were utilised in relation to installation of Pipelines and appellant was under bonafide belief that such CENVAT credit was admissible. Learned Advocate further argued that when appellant was holding a bonafide belief then ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 11A(1) is identical to the criteria for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products (supra) with regard to the proviso to Section 11A(1) has held that mere failure or negligence on the part of the manufacturer either to take out a licence or to pay duty in case where there was scope for doubt, does not attract the extended limitation period, unless there is evidence that the manufacturer knew that goods were liable to duty or he was required to take out a licence and, therefore, mere failure to pay the duty or take out the licence is not enough to invoke these proviso. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited (supra) ....