TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant and confirmed the demands of Rs. 6,56,679/- and Rs. 42,63,707/and also appropriated the said amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each on the appellant's Vadodara Unit as well as Peenya Unit which are in dispute in these appeals. However the demand of interest under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules is set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals) in both the appeals. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: - Peenya Unit Vadodara Unit SCN dt. 03/02/2014 08/01/2014 Period April 2010 to March 2011 January 201 1 to March 2011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CENVAT credit and the proportionate credit availed in respect of traded goods are required to be reversed. On these allegations, respective show-cause notices were issued to the units proposing to recover the credit along with interest and penalty invoking the extended period. After following due process, the Additional Commissioner, LT U, Bangalore had passed two Orders-in-Original dt. 31/03/2013 confirming the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed two appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order disposed of both the appeals and confirmed the demands along with penalty but dropped the interest. Hence the present appeals. 4. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Nelamangala uint Rs.1,21,975/- Nashik Rs.12,74,632/- 6. He further submitted that longer period of limitation is not invocable as the appellant has been issued show-cause notices on similar grounds for the earlier periods as is shown in the above table. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: - i. Caprihans India Ltd. vs. CCE [2015(324) ELT 8 (SC)] ii. ECE Industries Ltd. vs. CCE [2004(164) ELT 236 (SC)] iii. Nizam sugar Factory [2006(197) ELT 465 (SC)] 7. He also submitted that longer period of limitation is not invokcabe in the present case as the issue relates to interpretation of law.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period is not sustainable because on the same issue earlier show-cause notices are pending decision before the Tribunal. Further I find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various judgments of the hon'ble Supreme Court. I find that in the case of ECE Industries ltd. (supra), on an identical issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the demand on limitation. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. 1n the case of M/s. P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [2003 (2) SCALE 390], the question was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the Department has earlier issued show cause notices in respect o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - 3. We are of the opinion that 111c present appeal warrants to be allowed only on the ground that the impugned show cause notice was time barred and it was not a case where the Revenue could invoke the provisions of proviso 10 Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and take benefit of the extended period of limitation. From the facts noted above, it becomes clear that (he Department had issued Show Cause Notice way back on 18-2-1994 asking the appellant to reclassify the goods under Chapter Heading 3920. "therefore, all relevant facts were within the knowledge notice of the Department. Not only' this, after the appellant had filed the reply to the said Show Cause Notice and was heard in the ....