2018 (12) TMI 1360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Thermocol Products falling under Chapter 39 and were claiming the benefit to Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various inputs. They were also importing certain inputs/raw materials, which were being cleared on payment of duty of customs as also the Cess leviable on customs duty. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Revenue. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by way of show cause notice dated 15.12.2015, for denial of the credit so availed during the period from March, 2012 to October, 2014, to the extent of Rs. 7,28,669.00/-. Though the appellant agreed that the said cess credit was not available to them but they contested the demand on the point of time bar. 4. The Original Adjudicating Authori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s filed by them. In such a scenario no suppression or mis-statement with any mala fide can be attributed to them so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. As such by relying upon various decisions of the Tribunal he submits that the demand being beyond the normal period of limitation, is required to be set aside on the ground of time bar itself. 6. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reported at 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). It is well settled law that for invocation of longer period, Revenue has to produce evidence on record that any suppression or mis-statement by assessee was with a mala fide intention. In the present case I find that there was not even any suppression on the part of the assessee inasmuch as he was disclosing the fact of availment of credit to the Revenue.....