2017 (7) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lphuric Acid etc. and they are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the year 2006 an audit objection was raised in respect of availing the facility of CENVAT Credit and finally a show cause notice was issued in the year 2009, which is again on record as Annexure-'B' and based upon the show cause notice after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company the adjudicating authority has passed an order on 10-02-2014 Revenue Department for a period with effect from April, 2005 to June, 2009. In-fact three show cause notices were issued, first one on 12-11-2009, second one on 18-03-2010 and third one on 03-02-2011. A demand of Rs. 4,13,22,954/- was raised for the period with effec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case earlier proceedings were initiated on the same grounds and adjudication were done. In 2006 same issue was taken up in audit and there were correspondence discussing the eligibility of Cenvat Credit. Hence, we find that the allegation of willful suppression with intention to evade is not sustainable in the present case and the show cause notice-cum-demand issued on 12-11-2009 is hit by time bar beyond the normal period. It is seen from the impugned order that from October 2008 to June 2009 (covered by first show cause notice dated 12-11-2009) and during July 2009 to December, 2009 (covered by second show cause notice dated 18-03-2010) and for the period January, 2010 to June 2010 (covered by third show cause notice dated 03-02-2011), th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned, they are clearly qualified by the word "willful" preceding the words "mis-statement of suppression of facts" which means with intent to evade duty. The next set of words "contravention of any of the provision of this Act or Rules" are again qualified by the immediately following words "with intent to evade payment of duty". It is, therefor, not correct to say that there can be a suppression of misstatement of fact, which is not willful and yet constitutes a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11-A. Mis-statement or suppression of fact must be willful. 7. Now coming to the facts of this case, the appellant's case is that he thought bona fide that he need need include the value of the Rapidogens in his dec....