TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said power plant which was a separate entity later got amalgamated with the appellant with effect from 1.4.2003. After such amalgamation, they are functioning as sugar division and power division of M/s. Shree Ambiga Sugars Ltd., the appellant herein. The electricity produced in the power division is used within the factory for manufacture of sugar and molasses and they are availing the credit of duty paid on capital goods, inputs and service tax paid on input services. On verification of records of the appellant, it was noticed that they had availed credit of service tax paid on input services as well as duty paid on capital goods and inputs used for generation of electricity in the power plant. Since electricity has been brought under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t availed in such returns. That therefore they had not suppressed any fact from the department. Further, on 24.3.2006, consequent to the amalgamation, the appellant had intimated the department regarding the revised factory plan and availment of credit of capital goods and inputs. This itself would show that the appellant had no intention to evade payment of duty or tax. It is also submitted by her that the issue whether credit is eligible on the inputs, input services used for manufacture of electricity that is sold was under litigation and contentious for long period. There were decisions in favour of the appellant as well as the Revenue. She adverted to the decision of the Tribunal in Final Order No. 42083/2018 dated 20.7.2018 in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar - 2010 (262) ELT 432 (Tri. Ahmd.), was relied by the counsel to argue that when the issue is interpretational, the extended period cannot be invoked. 3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She argued that the appellant did not reverse the credit immediately on the decision of the Apex Court with regard to the ineligibility of credit. They had reversed the credit only on 31.1.2011 which is after almost nine months of issuance of show cause notice. From this, it is very much clear that the appellant had intentionally taken wrong credit and therefore is guilty of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty / ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, but failed to do so. Therefore, the department was left with no other option except to invoke the extended period under proviso to section 11A(1) of the Act which is duly justified. It is also pertinent to note that only after the issuance of SCN dt. 4.5.2010, they reversed the credit on 31.1.2011 i.e. after almost nine months. Thus, it is very clear that the appellant had intentionally taken the wrong credit and proviso to section 11A(1) of the Act has been rightly invoked." 6. From the above, it can be seen that the only allegation of suppression pointed against the appellant is that they failed to reverse the credit upon delivery of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. - 2009....