2019 (5) TMI 1094

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri. S. Govindarajan, Ld. AR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record. 3.1 A Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.2017 covering the period from September 2014 to March 2015 came to be issued inter alia alleging that the noticee-appellant had : (i) Taken wrong input credit on the basis of invoices issued beyond six months; (ii) Taken wrong input credit on the basis of invoices issued more than one year after taking the credit; (iii) Taken wrong input credit twice on the basis of same invoices; and (iv) Taken wrong input credit on the basis of invoices in respect of Rent-a-Cab Agency Services....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce when the Hon'ble High Court, while dealing with the availment of CENVAT/MODVAT credit vis-à-vis the time limit therefor which was prescribed vide Notification No. 16/1994-C.E. (N.T.) dated 30.03.1994 and after considering the arguments and various decisions, concluded that the Notification to the extent it prescribed the time limit was bad and consequently quashed the same. 7. The situation is no different here since neither Rule 3(1) nor Rule 4(1) prescribes any such time limits. Rather, it is the Notification No. 06/2015 relied upon by the adjudicating authority, which was also approved by the Commissioner (Appeals), that has prescribed the time limit and therefore, the contravention, if any, could be of the time limit prescr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e definition extracted supra. 9. In regard to the other issues of allegedly taking wrong CENVAT Credit, as pleaded by the Ld. Consultant, the fact that it had reversed such credit is on record along with the fact that though it had availed, had not utilized the same. The above aspect coupled with the vital contentions of the assessee that it had more than Rs. 60,00,000/- worth credit in its CENVAT Register has not at all been discussed and if the above facts were found to be true, then the Revenue cannot claim any loss. The case tried to be made out clearly is revenue neutrality and if proved, then there is no question of suppression. Therefore, in the light of the contentions of the appellant, as noted in the above paragraph, the issue ....