2017 (3) TMI 1354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and 38 of the CETA, 1985. On the basis of scrutiny of returns, it was alleged that the appellant had wrongly availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 61,93,971/- during the period from December 2008 to Feb. 2009 i.e. 4% additional Customs duty on the receipt of imported inputs between April 2006 to November 2008. A show cause notice was issued to them on 24.11.2009 for recovery of the said credit alongwith interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed partly to the extent of denial of total Cenvat Credit of RS 45,17,498/- and equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants are in Appeal before this forum. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant assailing the impugned Order advanced a two fold argument.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e same needs to be considered as reasonable delay and not inordinate delay attributable to their negligence. In support, the Ld Advocate referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CC Ahmedabad vs. Pierlita India Pvt Ltd 2011(27)ELT.535 (Tri. Ahmd) . 4. The second limb of argument of the Ld. Advocate is that the Ld. Commissioner though allowed Cenvat Credit of 4% SAD for a period of one year, but disallowed the credit of balance amount for the earlier period, on the ground that the registered dealer who issued the invoice has not complied with the conditions contained in the Notification No. 102/2007-CUS dt 14.9.2007. It is his contention that there was no whisper in the show cause notice about non-eligibility of cenvat credit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate for the appellant is that due to faulty SAP system even though credit of all other eligible duties paid in the respective Bills of Entry had been availed by the appellant during the relevant period, soon after receipt of the goods against the said Bills of Entry, but 4% SAD amount could not be taken. I find that this is even though recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in Para 8 of the impugned order, no contrary finding has been recorded on the said facts. Also, there is no dispute about the fact of receipt and use of the imported inputs. Thus on the aspect of delay in taking cenvat credit on 4% SAD only, I do not find merit in the impugned order in as much as the explanation that has been advanced by the appellant for not taking cenva....