2019 (3) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of readymade garments falling under Chapter Heading 6201 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from April 2002 to July 2003, the appellants had received the inputs i.e., fabrics under the commercial invoices issued by M/s. Arvind Mills, M/s. Arvind Polycot and M/s. Pash Jey Chemfabs (P) Ltd., which did not contain the particulars evidencing payment of duty and utilized CENVAT Credit on the strength of such commercial invoices. As such, it appeared that the said commercial invoices were not proper documents as envisaged under Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (as it existed during the material period). Further, it also appeared that the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the suppliers were supplying the goods to the appellant through the commercial invoices by mentioning the excise invoice number and date in the commercial invoice and the appellant took credit based on the commercial invoice initially though he got the excise invoice later in the corporate office. He further submitted that on 10.4.2003 appellant disclosed the methodology of availing the credit to the Department and he has also shown the details of commercial invoice numbers in the annexure to the monthly excise return and this fact has been noted in the impugned order. He also submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation because the period....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the material on record, I find that though the appellants have taken the credit on the basis of commercial invoice but they have informed the department regarding their methodology of availing the credit on 10.4.2003. Further, I find that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has recorded in para 6 that there is a statement of the appellant dated 8.8.2003 wherein they have explained the procedure regarding availment of CENVAT credit, which means that the appellants have not suppressed the relevant information from the Department. Thereafter, the Department issued the show-cause notice on 1.4.2007 after almost four years after the disclosure of information by the appellant regarding their method of taking the CENVAT credit. Once the de....