TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Audit for the period from April 2008 to March 2010, it was noticed that the appellants had made proviso to write off the non-moving inputs valued at Rs. 77,95,038/- in their books of accounts for the year 2009-10 and the CENVAT credit availed on the said inputs amounting to Rs. 12,72,150/- has not been reversed as required under Sub-rule (5B) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and it appeared that these inputs were not brought to the notice of the department and thus suppressed the information with intention to avail unavailable benefit and thus extended period of limitation under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 14 of CCR was invoked. On these allegations a show-cause notice was issued and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8, Folio No. 19 dt 01.10.2010 in CENVAT account and paid interest of Rs. 82,916/- on 06.10.2010. Further in respect to the audit observation, the appellant intimated the jurisdictional Superintendent vide letter dated 06.10.2010 the fact of payment of CENVAT and interest for the period from 01.04.2010 to 5.10.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in terms of Sub-Section (2B), of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 the appellant has paid the CENVAT and interest and intimated the department, then the Addl Commissioner of Audit ought not to have issued a show-cause notice. He further submitted that the proceedings initiated are contrary to the legal provision and are non-est in the eyes of law. He further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been adopted the liability to pay the CENVAT on the said input arises. He further submitted that there is no delay in making the payment of CENVAT of Rs. 12,72,150/- which was done on 1.10.2010 immediately after the finalization of the accounts and therefore there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. He also submitted that the show-cause notice and the impugned order have not shown any deliberate suppression of facts or malafide intention. In support of his submission he relied upon the following decisions: 1) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd Vs CCE Meerut [2005(188)ELT 149(SC) 2) Uniworth Textiles Ltd Vs CCE Raipur [2013(288)ELT 161(SC) 3) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs CCE Bombay [1995(78)ELT 401(SC)] 4)....