TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant avails cenvat credit on various inputs, input services and capital goods used in the manufacturing process. The appellant receives duty paid chassis from M/s Tata Motors and thereafter upon building the body, removes the same on payment of Central Excise Duty on some occasions, Tata Motors amends the purchase orders in view of revision in the sale prices. Based on the revision of price, the appellant submits supplementary bills after receiving amended purchase orders and raises debit notes, giving reference to the purchase orders. During the disputed period, due to oversight, the appellant did not pay the duty on the revised price. On being pointed out by the department, the appellant paid the duty of Rs. 5,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....below, which is not proper and justified in the fact of this case inasmuch as non-payment of duty at the material time was due to oversight and not attributable to any malafides on the part of the appellant. Thus, he submits that penalty imposed in the impugned order is not in conformity with the statutory provisions. To support such stand, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Aurangabad vs Rohit Industries 2013-TIOL-381-CESTAT-Mum. 5. Sh. R.K. Mishra, the Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. To substantiate his stand that confirmation of interest and penalty in the impugned order is in conformity with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have issued the SCN within one year from relevant date i.e. 10.01.2006. In this case, since admittedly the SCN was issued on 15.04.2008, the same in my considered view, is barred by limitation of time. In this context, this Tribunal in the case of Emco Ltd. (supra) by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs TVS WhirlPool Ltd. 2000 (119) ELT A-117 SC has held that period of limitation not only applies to the principle amount but also the same applies for recovery of interest. The relevant paragraph in the said decision is extracted herein below. 11. The Central Excise Act provides a time limit of one year from the relevant date for demand of duty in normal circumstances and a time li....