TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rected against the impugned order dt. 27/02/2015 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby he rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are holders of Central Excise Registration and manufacturers of glass and glassware, vaccum pressure pump etc. They are availing the facility of CENVAT credit under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand vide the impugned order. He also imposed equal penalty with the benefit of payment of twenty five percent as per first proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 3. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s sent back to the appellant. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Surya Colour Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2012(280) ELT 455 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. Max India Ltd. Vs. CCE [2008(227) ELT 328 (Tri. Del.)] 4.2. He further submitted that even if it is admitted that reversal is required even then, once the goods are received back, credit cannot be denied and in suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he goods are brought back, whereas it is a fact that the goods have been received back. He also submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the show-cause notice never invoked extended period of limitation and no reasons are given in the show-cause notice for invoking the extended period. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After....