2017 (4) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of audit, it was found that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle parts. Upto May, 2006, the manufacturing activities of the appellants were undertaken at Shivani, Faridabad and in June, 2006, the factory of the appellants, including inputs, semi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... their manufacturing unit at Palwal. The show cause notice was issued to the appellants to deny cenvat credit and to recover the same. The said unit was also called upon to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 5,36,492/- transferred by them should not be recovered. In these set of facts, the show cause notice has been issued to the appellants by invoking extended period of limitation. The matter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR submits that whether the appellant was manufacturing at Faridabad Unit or not in the knowledge of the department although, they filed returns of availment to cenvat credit on service tax. Therefore, as these facts were not in the knowledge of the department. The extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. The appellant has not complied with the conditions o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtment that the appellant has shifted their manufacturing activity in 2006, itself. It is also fact on record by way of service tax returns filed by the appellant. They have availed cenvat credit on service tax paid by them, therefore, I hold that as all the facts in the knowledge of the department. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation is not ....