2018 (2) TMI 1314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er 2011. Inasmuch as with effect from 1.4.2011, the construction services were excluded from the definition of input services, the appellant was given a show cause notice dated 12.6.2015 raising demand of duty of Rs. 44,84,158/-. 2. During adjudication, the appellant contended that though the credit has been availed subsequent to April 2011 on the basis of the invoices issued during the period October 2010 to November 2011 but the services were so obtained by them prior to 1.4.2011. The demand was also assailed on the point of limitation. 3. The original adjudicating authority did not find favour with the above stand of the assessee and confirmed the demand along with imposition of penalty. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ils of disputed CENVAT credit availed in monthly ER-1 returns filed by them with department during the period covered by this case and also that they had exchanged correspondence with the department on the very issue during the relevant time. They thus have argued and contended that every fact was brought by them to the knowledge of the department and thereby they had not hidden suppressed any fact from the department. In view of the absence of mens rea and non suppression of facts by them the show cause notice was required to be issued within one year viz. within the normal time limit but was issued beyond one year time limit hence it was clearly hit by time bar factor. In this context, I find that the appellant has not produced any eviden....