TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... • He submitted that appellant cleared the goods on payment of duty by availing Cenvat credit in accordance with law. But, after 01.04.2005 they opted for availing the full benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. He submitted that in terms of Rule 11 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) the appellant is required to reverse the Cenvat credit involved on the closing stock of inputs and inputs contained in the finished goods available as on 31.03.2005 and after deducting such amount, credit if any, still remaining, shall lapse. It was alleged by the Revenue that the assessees have not correctly reversed the credit involved in the inputs lying in stock or raw materials in process or finished product as on 01.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettled position of law that when statutory returns have been filed properly, suppression cannot be alleged and the demand is clearly hit by limitation. • The Commissioner (Appeals) has not even considered the Board's Master Circular No. 1053/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017, where in it has been clarified that extended period can be invoked only when there are ingredients necessary to justify the demand for the extended period in a case leading to short payment or non-payment of tax. Hence, the onus of establishing these ingredients lies on the Revenue for invoking extended period. • Ld. Consultant submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals have consistently held in the following cases that whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave gone through the case laws cited by the Ld. Consultant. The SCN is not ipso facto adjudication; just a proposal which culminates in the adjudication order and during the adjudication proceedings, the adjudicating authority looks into all aspects of law, facts and explanations offered by the assessee, the final order and the demand follows thereafter and hence the arguments of the Ld. Consultant that for proposing entire demand, in the SCN itself is bad, cannot be accepted and hence, the same is rejected. 4.2. I have also gone through the explanation filed by the assessee vide acknowledgement dated 13.03.2008in response to the SCN which is filed along with the appeal memorandum at pages 42-44. In the second page i.e., at running page ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....If in case we apply for destruction of this material the excise duty involved on the proportionate quantity of raw materials contained therein will be reversed at the time of destruction....." 4.5 Much after this, as noted by the adjudicating authority, appellant did not file any documentary evidence to prove either the destruction as of above, or the reversal as indicated by it in its reply extracted above. Even if it is to be accepted that the reversal would depend on destruction, learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order observes at paragraph 8 as under:- ".... As for the claim of the appellant regarding their request for destruction of rejected goods, there is no evidence on record placed by the appellant before me.........