TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. Sugar and Molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of detailed verification of the records of the appellant for the period from March 2017 to June 2017, it was noticed by the Revenue that the appellant has availed cenvat credit on certain items viz. HR coils, MS angles, MS channels, MS plates, etc. treating them as capital goods which are ineligible to take cenvat credit. On these allegations, a show-cause notice dt. 23/10/2018 was issued to the appellant proposing to deny cenvat credit of Rs. 15,52,986/- along with appropriate interest and imposition of penalty. After following due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er-in-Original but did not provide any proof about the service of the said Order-in-Original on them in the past and accordingly, the appellant considered the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original dt. 18/03/2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, Belgaum as 17/03/2020 and filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 19/03/2020 which was within time. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) while passing the impugned order has not considered the factual position and has simply assumed that the appeal against the Order-in-Original has been filed after lapse of 60 + 30 days' time limit and subsequently dismissed the appeal on time bar. The learned counsel also submitted that the Order-in-Original dt. 18/03/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erely rely upon the Dispatch Register to prove the service of the order on the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Assistant Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original on 18/03/2019 but the same was not actually delivered to the appellant. The appellant only came to know on 12/03/2020 when they received a letter from the Superintendent informing them about the passing of the Order-in-Original and ordered to recover the credit of Rs. 15,52,986/- along with interest and penalties. Thereafter the appellant vide their letter dt. 16/03/2020 informed the Superintendent that they h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es have not given the evidence of delivery. 5. During the course of argument, a submission was made that the applicant had slept over and never enquired about the order after the personal hearing and this shows a negligence on their part. In our view, such submission cannot survive because Revenue itself did not come forward after three months when it should have, for making the recovery as per the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Amounts were to be recovered and if the applicant is guilty of negligence, Revenue itself is guilty for not initiating action for recovery after expiry of period for filing the appeal. Timely action for recovery is utmost essential to safeguard the interest of revenue. If Revenue itself delays the act....