TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....motor vehicles such as knuckle assembly, axle assembly, etc., falling under sub heading 8708 9900, 8708 5000 and 8708 6000 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty/service tax paid on inputs, capital goods and input services respectively under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of audit on the records of the appellants for the Financial Year 2007-08, it was observed by the Accountant General Audit party that the appellant had written down the value of the three items of raw materials as detailed under: Name of the input Value of the input (Rs. in lakh) Value retained (Rs. in lakh) % Retained Ring snap 199.81 0.63 0.32% Wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04 with effect from 11.5.2007. Further, the appellant had made provision for partially written off of the value of inputs for the Financial Year 2007-2008 in respect of inputs which were received much prior to 11.5.2007, and hence, the condition envisaged in the said Rule is not applicable for the period prior to 11.5.2007. He further submitted that the appellant had not fully written off the value of inputs, they have only partially written down the value of the inputs. Learned counsel further submitted that Rule 3(5B) was amended from with effect from 1.3.2011 wherein even if the value of inputs is partially written off, even though the manufacturer is required to reverse the credit. Further, this amendment is only prospective and the dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the show-cause notice is based only on the audit objection by the AG party and the audit was also conducted on the basis of the documents produced by the appellant. In support of his submission that the entire demand is barred by limitation, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. vs. CCT: 2019-TIOL-1914-CESTAT-BANG. and GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (49) STR 242 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it has been held that extended period not invocable if demand raised based on audit of assessee's Books of Account. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that it....