2019 (2) TMI 877

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring the course of audit of the record of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellants have availed the ineligible CENVAT credit of Rs. 5,76,981/-. Therefore, a SCN dated 03.11.2015 was issued to the appellant demanding therein wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 5,76,981/- for the period from October 2010 to March 2012 along with applicable interest and imposition of penalty. After following the due process, the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2016 confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 5,76,981/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that during the last Audit conducted by the Department up to the period July 2010, it was verified and not raised any objection. He further submitted that once the Department was aware of the activities of the appellant, the Department cannot allege wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant to justify the intention of longer period. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut, 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC). * CCE, Faridabad-II Vs. Kapoor Lamp Shade Co., 2016 (337) ELT 14 (P&H). 4.1. He further submitted that the SCN was issued merely on Audit observation without even causing verification from the records of the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....conducted in the month of December 2012 wherein the issue of ineligible credit availed by the appellant was raised on the basis of the same Audit Report; without further verification a SCN is issued on 03.11.2015 that is nearly three years after the Audit and there is no material on record to show that the appellants have suppressed the material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier Audit conducted in the year 2010 the report of which is on record, the Department did not raise this objection with regard to service provided by the service provider and subsequently also there is no demand whereas the appellant is continuously availing the service from the service provider and paying the Servic....