2017 (10) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....redit Rules (CCR), read with Section 11AC. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of MS ingots. They are availing the CENVAT credit on inputs as well as on capital goods. It was alleged that the appellant had taken ineligible credit on the inputs purchased from M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Doddaballapur, Bangalore during the months of July 2008 and August, 2008, on which duty had not been discharged by M/s. Innovative Ventures Pvt. Ltd. The said company had closed up operations and the Directors of the company were absconding and therefore, the appellant had taken ineligible CENVAT credit on goods had not suffered Central Excise duty at the hands of the manufacturer. An amount of Rs. 6,77,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2008 (228) ELT 347 (Del.) * R.S. Industries vs. CCE, New Delhi: 2003 (153) ELT 114 (Tri.-Del.) * Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane-I: 2007 (212) ELT 63 (Tri.-Mumbai) * Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-II: 2015 (320) ELT 492 (Tri.-Del.) * S.K. Foils Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak: 2015 (315) ELT 258 (Tri.-Del.) * CCE, Jaipur vs. Aditya Industries : 2015 (330) ELT 528 (Tri.-Del.) * Kiran Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat-I: 2014 (36) STR 172 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 3.1 He further submitted that the show-cause notice issued on 7.7.2011 proposes to disallow and demand CENVAT credit taken on invoices during the period July 2008 and August 2008 invoking the larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....officer or manufacturer or an assessee. As far as the appellants are concerned, there was neither any error nor any misconstruction on their part. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned SDR that larger period of limitation will be invokable irrespective of the fact that fraud has not been committed by the appellants. It is evident from the impugned order that the appellants have not committed any fraud, suppression or willful mis-statement as the Commissioner has given specific finding that no evidence has been brought on record to suggest active involved of the appellants. Rule 57I(1)(ii) clearly provides that where a manufacturer has taken a credit by reason of fraud, willful mis-statement, collusion or suppres....