TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 72 and 84 of the CETA, 1985. During the period from March 2004 to May 2007, they had availed the credit of Rs. 14,68,758/- on various items like joists, channels, beams, flats, angles, plates, HR coil, rounds, etc., falling under chapter 72 of the Schedule. These items were used for various purposes by the respondent in their factory. During the course of audit of the record, the department's internal audit party vide their audit report dated 8.1.2007 had raised objection about the erroneous and improper availment of CENVAT credit by them in terms of provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. On these allegations, a show-cause notice dated 3.4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by the auditor and hence, the extended period was rightly invoked. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Vs. Mehta and Company reported in 2011 (264) ELT 481 has held as under: "Demand - Limitation - Relevant date for computation of extended period for show cause notice - Cause of action is date of knowledge - Department came to know of manufacture of furniture from information provided by buyer in 1997 - Date of knowledge attributable to 1997 - Reply sent by respondent on 27-2-1997 for letter from Department - Limitation if computed from such date, show cause notice issued on 15-5-2000 within prescribed period of limitation of five years - Section 11A of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether the show cause notice has been served within a period of five years therefrom. By no stretch of imagination the concept of knowledge can be read into the provisions. [paras 15, 16, 18, 20, 26]." 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (A) has considered the judgments relied upon by the Revenue and has found that they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has relied upon number of decisions which are applicable in the present case and has come to the conclusion that there was no suppression of fact on the part of the assessee to evade the payment of duty. He furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period - Extendend period not invocable - Demand time- barred - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) and 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) relied on]. [paras 2, 4, 5, 6] 12.2 (2) I also place reliance on the decision of the Hon. Tribunal in Studioline Interior Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2006 (201) ELT T250 where it held as follows: "9. The show cause notice had been issued invoking the extended period of limitation in terms of proviso to Section 11A(1), as it was alleged that the noticee ad suppressed the facts with an intention to evade payment of duty. We find force in the contention of the appellants that the show cause notice dt. 7-10-04, had been issued after a lapse of one year from the dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....astructure Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2015 (40) STR 825 approved by the Hon'ble High Court as reported in 2016 (44) STR J60 • M/s. Covalent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2016 (334) ELT 641 • M/s. Aarati Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2016 (335) ELT 775 • M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2016 (332) ELT 356 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that as per the order of remand passed by the Tribunal, the Commissioner (A) was directed to consider the aspect of limitation. Though, the Commissioner (A) has written findings on merit as well as on limitation in favour of the assessee but I will only confine my findings with regard to limitation alone and I....