2018 (4) TMI 1760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....availed within six months from the date of issue of invoice, the disallowance of CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,117 availed on spare parts of capital goods in the year in which the goods had been received and imposing of penalty of Rs. 5,44,446 corresponding to the disallowed CENVAT credit under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 for limiting the relief to reduction of disallowance to Rs. 1,40,966, relating to such as had been availed more than one year after the date of issue of invoices, and thus ordering recovery of Rs. 1,44,083/- with penalty of like amount under section 11AC Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. We have heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorised Representative. 3. Reliance is placed by Learned Counsel on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccount for cenvat credit. Even though the credit was not entered in so called RG 23A Part-II but it is recorded in the books of accounts, it will be considered as cenvat credit was recorded. On this ground also it can be said that there is no delay in taking the credit. As per my above discussion, the appellant is entitled for the cenvat credit hence the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.' 4. It is seen that the CENVAT credit pertains to the period from September 2014 to March 2015 for which show cause notice was issued on 8th March 2016. It is claimed that the amount in dispute pertains to the period for which normal period of limitation could not have been invoked on credit availed be4tween 30th September 2014 and 31st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... limitation would be one year, whereas the proceedings are initiated after the expiry of a period of one year. Therefore, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in observing that the demand was barred by limitation. 9. In the aforesaid case also, as facts were fully disclosed and there was no suppression, it was held by the Division Bench that extended period of limitation is not invocable. 9A similar view has been taken in the following cases Cosmic Dye Chemicals v. CCE reported in 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC); Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., v. CST reported in 2016 (42) STR 634 (Kar.); Gopal Zarda Udyog v. CCE reported in 2005 (188) ELT 521 (SC); Apex electricals Pvt. Ltd., v. UOI reported in 1992 (61) ELT 413 ....