2016 (9) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Ravi Raghavan (Advocate) and Ms.Satabdi Chatterjee (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Learned Advocate Shri Ravi Raghavan argued that a Cenvat Credit of Rs. 1,19,326/- (Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Six only) was rejected to the Appellant by confirming the demand under Rule 14(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR), read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That appropriate interest was also demanded under Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 11AB. That an equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; was also imposed upon the Appellant. Learned Advocate submitted that the issue is regarding admissibilit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies Ltd. [2014 (300) ELT 213 (Guj.)] (viii) CCE, Raipur v. Orion Ferro Alloys Pvt.Ltd. [2010 (259) ELT 84 (Tri.Del.)] 3. Learned Advocate specifically emphasized that as per Gujarat High Court s decision in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Cus. & ST, Daman v. N.R.Agarwal Industries [2014 (300) ELT 213 (Guj.)] extended period cannot be invoked as Appellant was under the bona fide belief that Cenvat Credit on the impugned items was admissible. 4. Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that extended period of limitation is applicable in the present proceedings in view of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court s decision in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. Union of India [2013 (295) ELT 20 (All.)]. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cumstances:- "6. From the above facts it could very well be seen that the assessee had a decision in his favour and therefore it was reasonable on its part to hold a belief that the Cenvat credit was available. It was only subsequently that the issue came to be decided against him. It was hardly a relevant aspect. The assessee acted bona fide and in honest belief that Cenvat credit was available. In the facts and circumstances, no intention could be ascribed on the part of the assessee to evade the duty or suppress any fact. In that view, there was no justification in invoking the longer period of limitation beyond the normal period as the conditions therefor were not satisfied. The question formulated does not raise any substantia....