2015 (12) TMI 1048

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellants factory on 02.08.2004 and the entire factory was submerged into the water of Damanganga river. The Appellants informed the Central Excise officers of the damage of the goods and records due to the flood. On 05.08.2004, the Central Excise officers visited the Appellant's factory premises and recorded the destruction of records and the goods and prepared Panchnama. During EA-2000 Audit conducted by the Central Excise officers, it was found that the original copy of CENVAT invoices of Rs. 71,63,191.00 were not available. A Show Cause Notice dt.05.11.2007 was issued, proposing to deny CENVAT Credit of Rs. 71,63,191.00 alongwith interest and to impose penalty for the month of January 2003 to June 2005. The Adjudicating authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellants had not informed the loss of original copy of invoice, which was detected by the Audit during verification of the records. He further submits that it is a clear case of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore, extended period of limitation would be invoked. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication order. He also submits that the Tribunals remand order is only for verification of records. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that that this is second round of litigation. For proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the Tribunals order dt.03.05.2010 is reproduced below:- "5. We find force in the above....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Excise, Accounts and other miscellaneous were not available and few records which were available for the said period, were not legible due to flood water. Thus, though the Panchnama was drawn by the Range officers but the facts were recorded as per what was stated by the authorized signatory of the Assessee unit. The then Commissioner in his OIO No.07/Dem/Vapi/2009 has held that the Assessee had never intimated that the Cenvatable documents were lost in flood and instead they had collected zerox copies in support of Cenvat availment; that the assessee suo moto never came forward to the Department with the plea that they were not having copies of certain cenvatable invoices on which they had taken CENVAT Credit but it was detected during the....