2016 (6) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it availed on MS items. The appeal No.E/2453/2012 is filed by Revenue challenging the reduction of penalty. The parties are referred to as assessee and Revenue hereafter for convenience. 2. The assessee is engaged in manufacture of cement and are availing facility of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. A show-cause notice was issued alleging that assessee availed irregular credit on MS items used for erection and fabrication works in assessee s premises at Boyireddipalli during the period 9/2006 to 5/2008 to the tune of Rs. 24,08,656/-. The assessee reversed the credit on 19/06/2008 and 20/03/2009 in their CENVAT account. After due process of law, the original authority vide order dt. 22/12/2011 confirmed the disallowance of credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation of walk-ways within the plant area, as inserts used in civil work by M/s. GDC Ltd. (civil contractors) and for wagon loading shed outside the factory. The assessee reversed the credit on various dates and informed the reversal to the department vide letter dt. 16/09/2009. 4. The main defence raised by assessee on merits in their reply to show-cause notice is that prior to the amendment to the definition of input in Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the credit on cement, angles and channels, CTD or TMT bars used for construction of shed, building or structure support of capital goods was admissible. That as these items were used prior to amendment the credit is admissible, and that the amendment (Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k)) do....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsel for appellant has strongly contested the issue of limitation. According to her, there was no suppression and therefore the extended period is not invokable. The show-cause notice was issued based on the details shown by assessee in the monthly ER-1 returns. The quantity wise details / information / invoices were furnished to the department by the assessee. It is the case of department that unless a scrutiny of records was done, the fact of availment of irregular credit would not have come to light. This contention is refuted by the appellant counsel by submitting that the availment of credit was disclosed in ER-1 returns and the statement filed under Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The issue whether credit was admissible on struct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2016(332) ELT 356 (Tri. Del.)] where the grounds of limitation are akin to the facts of this case has held that extended period of limitation is not invokable. The Tribunal in the said case observed as under:- 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. V. Commr. Of C.Ex., Chandigarh-1 reported in 2007(216) ELT 177 (SC) held that the expression suppression has been used in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act accompanied by very strong word as fraud or collusion and therefore, has to be construed strictly. Mere omission to give correct information is not a suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. The incorr....