TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest and penalty on merit as well as on limitation in their appeal and during the course of hearing before the Tribunal. It is submitted that while passing the order, it was escaped the notice of the Bench that no finding was given in respect of demand of duty is barred by limitation. He drew the attention of the Bench to the grounds of appeal as well as instant application, where there is specific averment that they have argued time bar issue before the Bench. He submits that on an identical issue, this Bench in the case of M/s Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T., Vadodara by Final Order No. A/11114-11115/2015, dt.27.07.2015, allowed the ROM application. He further submits that on the similar situation, the Revenue challenged the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on merit holding that in the absence of any documentary evidence, there is no reason to interfere the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and the same is required to be upheld insofar as demand of CENVAT Credit and interest is concerned. The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 16(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The findings of the Tribunal are reproduced below:- "5. So far as imposition of penalty upon the Appellant is concerned, it is observed from the case records that Appellant was sending the inputs through challans under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, therefore, the activities undertaken by the Appellant and job workers of the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposing equivalent penalty under the provisions of Rule 15 are the same what are required for invocation of extended period. In the light of the opinion given by this Bench, it was interpretational dispute, therefore, it cannot be held that Appellant had any intention to evade duty or take wrong CENVAT Credit deliberately. Accordingly, it is held that extended period is not invocable in these proceedings. Period involved in this case is from 07.07.2004 TO 09.09.2004 and CENVAT Credit was taken in March 2005. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.06.2007 which is not within one year normal period of limitation. The demand is time barred. Similar view was taken by CESTAT Bangalore, under similar facts, in the case of AARPEE Electricals (P) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30,08,632.47 made by the Adjudicating Commissioner in its Order-in-Original No.35/MP/95, dt.29.05.1995 in exercise of power conferred under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 7. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Valsad Vs M/s Atul Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court observed as under:- "5. This rectification application came to be allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the contention of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, though raised, was not decided. The Tribunal thereupon, proceeded to decide such contention as under: "4.1It is observed from the representing GP. Is that Appellant has been showing duty paid through P....