2018 (10) TMI 1275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal vide its Order dated 29.08.2018 and the all the 11 appeals were allowed. These two appeals were de-linked because issue involved in these two appeals is different and the same has not been dealt with by the Commissioner (A) in its impugned order dated 15.02.2018. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, no speaking order has been passed on the issue of short reversal CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 6(3A)(b)(iii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Since the issue in both these appeals is identical therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand as confirmed in the Order-in-Original is barred by limitation of time and the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the demand in the present cases relates to the period April 2011 to November 2014 and April 2012 to July 2014 in case of Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively whereas the SCN was issued on 18.08.2015. He further submitted that the demand has been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation in terms of Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) has been wrongly invoked as no ingredient of the said Section is present in these cases as the appellant has complied with the procedural requirement of law by filing th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner (A) with a direction to give specific findings on the issues involved in the present two appeals. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that there is force in the contention of the appellant that most of the demand is time-barred as there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant with intention to evade tax. Further, I find that the appellants have been giving intimation from time to time regarding reversal of CENVAT Credit as per CCR, 2004 but the Commissioner (A) has not given any findings in these two appeals with regard to the issue involved. Therefore, I am of the view that these two appeals need to be remanded back to the Commissioner (A) with a dir....