2018 (6) TMI 1337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Central Excise Department and engaged in manufacturing of Ceramic Glazed Frits. The appellant 1^st unit was set up sometime in the year 1974. Further for expansion of business and due to paucity of space they acquired another premises situated behind the existing factory in the year 2004 and started the same activity in the premises which was known as unit-2. The said unit was having separate Central Excise Registration. 3. During the course of audit it was noticed that during the period from August 2008 to May 2011 the appellant in both of their manufacturing units were using pipeline supplied gas as fuel received from M/s GAIL and full credit of service tax paid as per the bills raised for transportation of such piped fuel gas was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....input. Further M/s GAIL issued single invoice for transportation of gas from M/s GAIL to unit-1 and unit-2. After receipt of the gas in unit-I, some part of it was transferred to unit-II on their own and due to unity of ownership no charge was made for the gas from unit-2. 5. Hence, it appeared to the Revenue that the appellant -unit-1 had availed and utilized excess Cenvat Credit attributable to the quantity of gas not consumed/utilized by the appellant's unit-1 in or in relation to manufacture of the final product and accordingly show cause notice was issued for demanding the wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 14,35,785/- alongwith interest and further penalty was also proposed. Such excess Cenvat Credit wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....redit was taken in excess in unit-I towards transportation of gas will be receivable as input service in unit-2. It is also stated that such practice was going on since 2004 - 05 when the unit no. 2 was set up. This activity was in the knowledge of the Department and thus raising of demand by invoking extended period by issuing show cause notice dated 01 August, 2013 is not maintainable as there being no element of contumacious conduct, suppression of facts or misstatement in the records. 9. The learned AR for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 10. Having considered the rival contentions I find that the transactions were duly recorded in the books of accounts ordinarily maintained by the appellant. There is no element of any s....