2017 (11) TMI 939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., namely, Telephone Services, Printing and Stationary, Legal Expenses etc, as the appellant was involved in the manufacture as well as in the activity of high sea sales i.e. trading. Therefore, it was alleged that the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit attributable to their trading activity; consequently they are required to pay 6% of the value of the goods traded by them in terms of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004. The matter was adjudicated and demand is alleged in the show cause notice was confirmed alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contested the matter on three grounds:- (a) For the period prior to 1.4.2011 they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In that circumstances, for the period prior to 1.4.2011, the appellant is not required to either reverse of cenvat credit attributable to trading activity, or liable to pay @ 6 % of the value of traded goods. Therefore, the demand for the period prior to 1.4.2011 is set-aside. 6.3. Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not? In this case for the trading activity, the appellant was filing the regular ER-1 Returns and availment of cenvat credit was in the knowledge of the department and the case of the revenue is that the revenue came to know of the fact of trading activity to their financial records which is a public records. No other positive evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to alleged suppression of ....