2016 (9) TMI 368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....01. The appellant has taken over the business of M/s. SEZAL Glass Ltd. functioning at the above address including their assets and liabilities. They are availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid /payable on inputs / Capital goods as well as Service Tax paid on input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Proceedings were initiated vide Show Cause Notice No. LTUC/65/2013-ADC dt. 29.03.2013, after an audit was conducted by the internal audit group, stating that the appellant had wilfully suppressed and wrongly availed CENVAT credit on items viz. Bars, Angle, Channels, MS Plates & Coils, as Capital goods. In reply vide letter dt. 13.05.2013, that the details submitted vide letter Dated: 16.05.2011, it was submitted that they had a bonafide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Special Economic Zone Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & Cus reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 729 (Guj.) has in para 8 of the judgement observed as follows : "8. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Vandana Global Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440. We have carefully gone through the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. We do not find that amendment made in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which come into force on 7-7-2009 was clarificatory amendment as there is nothing to suggest in the Amending Act that amendment made in Explanation 2 was clarificatory in nature. Wherever the Legislature wants to clarify the provision, it cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould be remanded for verification and re-quantification. 4. The advocates for the appellants submitted that the demand for the denial of cenvat credit was by invoking the extended period and in the facts of the present case the appellants have declared in their returns all the particulars and there was no room to impute the guilt of suppression of facts on them. The issue was purely interpretative in nature and therefore the invocation of extended period is unsustainable. Under normal circumstances, it would have been proper to remand the matter to the lower authorities for a verification and re-quantification but in the instant case the period of dispute is from April 2009 to December 2009 and the SCN was issued on 29.03.2013 and during....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itation duty should not have been paid, short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded because of either fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of fact or contravention of any provision or rules. This Court has held that these ingredients postulate a positive act and, therefore, mere failure to pay duty and/or take out a licence which is not due to any fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact or contravention of any provision is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation. ... ... 8. In this case, there was a divergent view of the various High Courts whether crushing of bigger stones or boulders into smaller pieces amounts to manufacture. In view of the divergent view....