TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their factory at the said premises by April, 2007. On completion of the factory they took Central Excise and VAT Registration for the said premises in May, 2007 in order to commence production. The appellants vide letter dated 08.06.2007 intimated the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Poonamalle Division about these facts. Later, the appellant had incorporated the Company name Hanil Tubes India Pvt. Ltd., which took over the two establishments for the purpose of supply of OE to M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. In the process of such takeover by the Hanil Tubes India Pvt. Ltd., the appellants submitted a letter for cancellation of the Central Excise Registration at Ambattur. They stopped the manufacturing activity at Ambattur on 31.08.2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Counsel, Shri N. Viswanathan submitted that the SCN was issued invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand of Rs. 74,14,622/- is clearly barred by limitation and not sustainable. The Ld. Counsel argued that appellant had disclosed the availment of credit in the ER-1 returns. The SCN has been issued basing on such returns and therefore the appellant is not guilty of any suppression of facts as alleged in the SCN. After filing of the returns, the Range Superintendent on scrutiny of the said return vide letter dated 17.11.2007 called for details of the said services (construction activity of the factory) and asked the appellants to produce copy of the invoices for verification. All such details were submitted to the Range Superin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant had produced the documents before the authorities below but these were not properly considered. The Ld. Counsel thus pleaded that if given a chance, the appellants would be able to prove that the credit availed on various input services is properly supported by the documents. 3. Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the said infractions in availment of credit would not have come to light but for the verification done by the Department. That the appellant is therefore guilty of suppression of facts and the SCN issued invoking the extended period is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5.1 The issue with regard to the irregularly availed service tax credit of Rs. 74,14....