TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isposal. 2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to a Show-Cause Notice, dated 24.02.2016, by which, the respondent has called upon the petitioner to explain as to why an amount of 84,05,685/- quantified under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 towards reversal of CENVAT Credit availed on the exempted service of trading for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 should not be demanded and recovered from the petitioner under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944; why the penalty should not be imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; why the interest at the appropriate rate should not be recovered under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice tax CENVAT Credit amount to be reversed as per Rule 6(3A)(c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and paid/reversed CENVAT Credit amount of Rs. 6,21,222/- for the financial year 2011-12 and reversed CENVAT credit of Rs. 5,04,316/- for the financial year 2012-13 respectively. The learned counsel further submits that while the position stood thus, the impugned Show Cause Notice has been issued. 4. By referring to Section 11 A(7) of Central Excise Act, it is submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated after a period of one year is wholly without jurisdiction. That apart, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of ORISSA BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CORPN. LTD., Vs. C.C.E., BHUBANESWAR reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T.14 (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of ORISSA BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CORPN. LTD., referred supra, would not be of much assistance to the case of the petitioner, since in those proceedings, the assessee had exhausted all the channels and the Appeal was against the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that without laying any proposition of law, in view of the fact of the said case, it was held that the Department was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, the decision was rendered on the facts of the said case and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that they are not laying any....