2016 (12) TMI 1522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, Advocate For Revenue : Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative ORDER Heard both sides. 2.  This appeal is filed against OIA-VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-308-2013-14 dt 21/08/2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I. 3.  The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Fertilizers and Chemi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion, the demand was confirmed alongwith equal amount of penalty under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with 11AA of the CEA, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4.  The Ld Advocate Shri Willingdon Christ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was issued. He submits that therefore, there was no suppression of facts on their part, accordingly, extended period of limitation is not attracted. In support, he has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Pragathi Concrete Products  2015(322) ELT 819 (SC). 5.  Ld AR for the Revenue  reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (App....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed at Page No 97 and 98 of Appeal Memorandum). Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had suppressed the facts in availing the credit on such Input Services from the knowledge of the department. Accordingly, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the appellant in view of the principle laid by  the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pragathi Concrete Products' case(supra). How....