2017 (3) TMI 651

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The above appeal is filed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who disallowed the credit on MS items. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Plain/Malamine Faced Particle Boards and are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit on inputs and input services. During the period July 2004 to March 2009, the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of components/parts of capital goods the credit is admissible. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the show cause notice has been issued invoking the extended period of limitation. That appellants had filed ER-1 returns regularly disclosing the credit availed on MS items. That therefore there has been no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. The LCL Counsel has relied upon the judg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent and therefore the appellants are guilty of suppression of facts. That the demand raised invoking the extended period of limitation is legal and proper. 5. I have heard both sides. The period involved is prior to 07.07.2009 when the explanation in the definition of inputs was introduced restricting the use of MS items. Further, the present show cause notice is seen issued by department relyi....