TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to M/s. VCL for home consumption. In addition to supplying duty paid products to M/s. VCL for home consumption, the appellant also removed finished goods under bond for supplying to M/s. VCL for export to Nepal and for supply to SEZ/EOU. The Audit Team conducted scrutiny, inspection and verification of records submitted by the Appellant. On verification it was found that the Appellant had taken and utilized Cenvat credit of Rs. 12,95,069/- against invoices of input services issued by one M/s. Monica Roofing. The said M/s. Monica Roofing was to provide services of erection, commissioning and painting of the pre-engineered building of the Appellant and the material for the said services was also to be provided by M/s. Monica Roofing. Admitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uance of the show cause notice and therefore this itself shows that there was no malafide intention on the part of the Appellant. He further submitted that all the details of Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant on disputed services were duly reflected in excise records and also in ER-1 and since there was no malafide intention to evade payment of duty there was no reason for the department to invoke extended period of limitation and the Appellant is not liable for penalty as well. Learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 4. It is settled legal position that neither extended period of limitation can be invoked nor penalty is levied unless there is malafid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for invoking the extended period and also for imposing penalty. From the facts of the present matter it is clear that immediately upon pointing out by the Audit, the Appellant reversed the entire Cenvat credit of Rs. 12,95,069/- with interest, without even waiting for show cause notice and this itself establishes that it is a case of bonafide mistake and there was no intention to evade duty. 5. So far as penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 is concerned, the same has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs Rajasthan Spinning and weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3(SC) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs CCE 1995....