TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the manufacture of their final products; the CENVAT Credit taken was therefore not legally correct and proper. On being pointed out by the audit party, the appellant debited Rs. 1,62,811/- in their December, 2012 ER-1 return; the appellant had paid Education Cess and SHE Cess on 30.01.2013; that on perusal of working sheet it was noticed that appellant had included quantity of readymade shirts which were already cleared prior to the imposition of duty (with effect from 01.03.2011) on the same to their various sales points lying in stock; that on being pointed out about the irregular availment, the assessee had debited Rs. 16,02,965/- along with Education Cess and SHE Cess on 30.01.2013 which was duly reflected in their December 2012 ER-1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. [2017 (50) S.T.R. 268 (Allahabad)] in support of his contentions that the invocation of larger period of limitation was bad and further relies on the jurisdictional High Court decisions in the case of : * Commissioner of C. Ex., Puducherry-I Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2017 (346) E.L.T. 80 (Mad.)]; and * Commissioner of C. Ex., Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. [2014 (310) E.L.T. 509 (Mad.)] to point out that when the excess CENVAT Credit was availed erroneously, which was subsequently reversed, having not utilized the same, no interest or penalty is leviable. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR contends that there is no finding with regard to the excess CENVAT Credit having not been utilized by the assessee and therefore, submits tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns in arriving at the said conclusion. The 'normal' period of limitation for issuing a show cause notice under Section 28 is one year from the due date and unless there is suppression of facts or misstatement, the extended period of limitation will not be attracted. In the present case, the show cause notice, dated 18-3-2003 in respect of the earlier consignments, admittedly, is beyond one year. Such notice beyond the normal period of limitation could have been issued only if there have been suppression of facts. If, from the show cause notice, dated 16-4-2002 and the report of the EPTRI and NMDC in respect of the samples from the consignments dated 24-12-2001 and 24-1-2002, the Revenue was already in the know of the relevant facts, it is d....