2018 (6) TMI 1139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d accessories of Motor Vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to CETA, 1985. On 25/04/2014, the Commissioner exercising his powers conferred under Section 14AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 directed M/s. Nagadheep Sathyanarayana & Co., Bangalore to conduct audit of the appellant covering the period from August 2011 to March 2014. As per the audit reports submitted by the auditors, there was a difference in purchase amounts shown by the appellant in CENVAT Credit Register and Trial Balance which led the auditors to conclude that the appellant had availed excess cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 23,31,551/- during 2012-13 and 2013-14, which is shown below:- Year Purchase as per CENVAT Credit Register Purchase as per Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Sheet or made any attempt to compare and reconcile the trial balance account with the audited Profit & Loss account/balance sheet. He further submitted that the audit report is neither complete nor legal and the Department should not have issued the show-cause notice merely on the basis of Cost Audit Report. He further submitted that the show-cause notice has not alleged any contravention of any provisions of CCRs for the demand of impugned CENVAT credit or any other provisions of CEA and Rules. In this respect, he relied upon the decision in the case of i. Gajanan Vishweshar Birjur Vs. UOI [1994(72) ELT 799 (SC)] (b) Hwashin Automotive (l) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(326) ELT 710]; (c) CCE Vs. Taj Madras Flight Kitchen [2015(321) ELT 286] an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the backdrop of the adjudication. The learned counsel also challenged the invocation of extended period and imposition of penalty on the ground that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant as the appellant has produced all the records before the Chartered Accountant who conducted the audit. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant was negligent and did not reply to the audit observation raised by the Chartered Accountant. He further submitted that the discrepancy was found in the records and the appellant cannot go back on their record and claim that their accounting system is at fault. 8. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that in the sh....