TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015/- on the invoices which were beyond six months of the date thereof and were also observed to have wrongly availed the credit amounting to Rs. 5,12,566/- on the common inputs services which were being used by the appellant in manufacture as well as the trading activities during the year 2014-15. Resultantly, vide SCN No. 3509 dated 25.11.2016 both the aforesaid amounts were proposed to be disallowed and to be recovered from the appellant alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty were also proposed. The said SCN was initially adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner who vide Order-in-Original No. 01 dated 26.09.2017 had confirmed the entire proposal of the said SCN. Being aggrieved an Appeal was preferred b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber 2015. Seeing from two SCNs it is submitted that the matter was well within the knowledge of the Department. Invocation of penalty is absolutely unjustified irrespective it has been reduced by Commissioner(Appeals). Also, the SCN is bared by time. Finally it is submitted that the cenvat credit taken has already been reversed by the appellant in toto. Case law as relied upon by Ld. Advocate is Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. reported as 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) Order accordingly is prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 4. While rebutting these arguments, Ms. Tamana Alam, Ld. DR has impressed upon the findings of Commissioner(Appeals) in para 7 thereof wherein all the grounds as have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o doubt has taken the cenvat credit beyond six months but within the one year of the requisite invoices. The benefit of the above discussed confusion has to be extended in favour of the assessee. Above all substantive benefits cannot be lost on account of procedural lapse. While ignoring the same the Commissioner(Appeals) has definitely committed an error. 7. Coming to the second count, it is held as: From the case law of Ruchika Global (supra) as has been relied upon by the department it is apparent that w.e.f. 31.03.2011 trading was very much included as an exempted service. It is the case of the appellant that they were involved in manufacturing as well as trading. Hence it becomes clear that appellant was liable to follow the mandate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od June 2014 to December 2016 rather the same has to be issued for the period January 2015 onwards. Perusal of record also shows that earlier also SCN dated 29.05.2015, as acknowledged in the above letter, was served upon the appellant on the same grounds raising the demand for the same period as involved in the present SCN. Not only this another SCN prior to the impugned one was also served upon the appellant dated 21.12.2015 on the same ground including the partial period of the impugned SCN i.e. w.e.f. January 2015 to September 2015. This perusal makes it clear that while issuing the impugned SCN the factum of availing the cenvat credit by the appellant on the common input/ input services was very much in the notice of the Department. It....