2017 (9) TMI 1052

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-08 and 2008-09. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 14,73,790/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit. By the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. Hence, Revenue filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. I find that the demand of Cenvat Credit was set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals) as barred by limitation. The ld.AR for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. It is submitted by the ld.AR that in the self assessment system, the assessee cannot be asked to submit the details of all the Cenvat Credit. It is further submitted that irregular availment of Cenvat Credit was detected by the aud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pur v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2017 (347) E.L.T. 3 (Chattisgarh)] (c) I Aarti Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Surat-II [2016 (335) E.L.T. 775 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] (d) Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raigad [2008 (223) E.L.T. 517 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (e) Vandana Global Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raipur [2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB)] (f) Commr. of C.Ex., Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)] 5. The Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) on the identical issue held that the demand for the extended period is not sustainable. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "9. We tend to agree the appellants plea that they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....statement. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore v. Karnataka Agro Chemicals 2008 (227) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) held that it is well settled that mere non-declaration is not sufficient to invoke the larger period. Some positive act of suppression is required for invoking larger period of limitation under Section 11A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash Industries Limited v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) held that in the case of divergent views of the various High Courts there was a bona fide doubt as to whether or not such activity amounted to manufacture. In such situation, the extended period cannot be invoked. In Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. Commissio....