TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.10.2016 came to be issued only after the audit of the records maintained by the assessee and there is no whisper about any other document which is being referred to; (iii) The Revenue had also verified the CENVAT documents as well as the CENVAT account maintained by the assessee before issuing the Show Cause Notice; (iv) There was a similar audit in October 2012 wherein no irregularities as to the wrong availment of CENVAT Credit was pointed out and it was only in the subsequent audit, i.e., in October 2015 that the availment of CENVAT Credit on Aluminium Sheets and MS Chequered Sheets was questioned, for the period from December 2012 to August 2015; (v) There is no case made out or even suppression alleged in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(282) E.L.T. 196 (Kar.); (iii) Garrison Polysacks P. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Vadodara-II - 2013 (292) E.L.T. 513 (Tri. - Ahmd.); (iv) Hero Honda Motocorp Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-III - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 364 (Tri. - Del.); (v) C.C.E., Pune-I Vs. Thyssenkrupp Industries I Ltd. - 2017; 1.4 Ld. Advocate summarizes his arguments by submitting that there were no mala fides attributed to the appellant since, upon being pointed out during audit, it voluntarily reversed the credit alleged to have been wrongly availed for the normal period i.e., from November 2014 to August 2015 and hence, the demand for the period from December 2012 to October 2014 for which the extended period of limitation was invoked, was not justified. 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted in 2010 (251) E.L.T. 264 (Tri. - Chennai) to support his case. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant, countering the above arguments of the Ld. AR, contends that the Show Cause Notice was issued only in October 2016 and does not specifically address suppression, fraud, etc., to justify invoking the larger period of limitation and that therefore the Revenue has not made out a case and accordingly, prays that the demand beyond the normal period of limitation i.e., from December 2012 to October 2014 may be directed to be dropped. For the above reasons, he also pleads that the penalty is required to be deleted as no case for suppression is made out. 4. Heard both sides, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid, etc., by reason of fraud, collusion, etc., with an intent to evade payment of duty, such person is liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty determined. As per the provision of Rule 15 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in a case where the CENVAT Credit has been taken and utilized wrongly by reason of fraud, suppression, etc., and in contravention of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or of the rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty, the manufacturer shall also be liable to pay penalty in terms of the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 7. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about the fact tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded period of limitation under Section 11A the burden is cast upon it to prove suppression of fact. An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a wilful mis-statement. The latter implies making of an incorrect statement with the knowledge that the statement was not correct." 19. Judged by this test, it is clear that on facts in the present case there was no suppression on the part of the appellants nor was there any willful attempt to evade duty. As stated by the appellant, the appellant has been manufacturing tractors from 1965 onwards. There has never been any change in the manufacturing process. In the year 1994-95, IC engines were stated by the department to contain Transmission Assemblies, which were dutiable. On receiving a....