TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 38 and 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing cenvat credit facility. During the audit, it was observed that the appellant had made provision for value of Rs. 46,35,057/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand and Fifty Seven only) in respect of raw-materials in their financial records as on 31.03.2008 but failed to pay an amount equivalent to the cenvat credit taken in respect of the said inputs and therefore it appeared that they were liable for payment of an amount equivalent to the cenvat credit availed by them and contained in the said raw-materials/packing materials along with interest. The appellant vide their e-mail dated 26.11.2009 furnished the information regarding provisions made for cenvatable and non-cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions to write off fully or partially has been made under Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) Eternit Everest Ltd. vs. UOI, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.) Department appeal dismissed as withdrawn in 2002 (141) E.L.T. A285 b) Sri Eswari Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 2015-TIOL-1975-CESTAT-MAD. 3.1. He further submitted that the quantification of demand is based on an assumption as the Department has adopted the highest rate while denying the credit which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. He further submitted that the provisions relatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore the appellants have suppressed the material fact from the Department. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules there was no recovery mechanism prior to 01.03.2013 and therefore demanding the cenvat credit is not sustainable in law as held in the case of Eternit Everest Ltd. cited supra and also Sri Eswari Auto Components cited supra. Further I also find in the present case the entire demand is time-bar because the show-cause notice was issued on 01.01.2010 for the provision to write off which was created in the financial records of the appellant as on 31.03.2008 which is beyond the period of limita....