TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the appellant, it was found that they had cleared imported raw materials 'as such' on sale to their vendors and also 'stock transferred' to M/s. Mobis India Ltd. on account of business transfer on payment of duty. However, the excise duty paid on such inputs cleared as such was not equal to the CENVAT credit availed thereon inasmuch as the reversal included only CVD and related cess and not the Special Additional Duty (SAD) levied on imported raw materials which was originally availed as credit at the time of import. As per Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, when inputs or capital goods on which CENVAT credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory or premises, the manufacturer of the final products has to pay an amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter, the adjudication has taken place after a delay of 10 years from the date of issuance of Show Cause Notice. Though the appellant had mentioned in their reply that they had reversed an amount equal to credit and actually have paid amount in excess of the credit availed, they were not able to substantiate the same with documents at the time of hearing. This is because the hearing has taken place after a delay of more than 10 years from the date of issuance of Show Cause Notice. He submitted that the delay in adjudication has always been condemned by the Courts and has consistently held as violation of principles of natural justice. To support his argument, he relied upon the following judgments:- a. Parle International Ltd. Vs. Union o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect has not been disputed in the Show Cause Notice by the department. 6. The learned counsel also argued on the ground of limitation. The appellants having replied to the Show Cause Notice and also having given the details of reversal of credit in their ER1 returns, they have not suppressed any facts. Further, the Show Cause Notice also does not allege that the appellant has suppressed any facts. The Show Cause Notice vaguely states that the same would not have come to notice but for the verification done by the audit and therefore the extended period of limitation can be invoked. There is no allegation of suppression of facts or willful misstatement in the Show Cause Notice. To support his argument, he relied upon the decision of the Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not been able to establish the reversal by producing sufficient document is indeed not fair to the appellant. The observation made by the adjudicating authority for confirming the demand is that the appellants have not provided any evidence to show that they have reversed the SAD in respect of the imported materials cleared as such. It is also stated that the reversal shown in ER-1 was verified by Section Officer and found that they have not reversed SAD amount. If the adjudication had happened in close proximity with the reply furnished by the appellant, they would have been in a better position to explain their defence. 10. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Parle International Ltd. (supra) held that the inordinate dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t but for the verification done by Audit and the extended time limit under the proviso to section 11A(1) appears invocable for recovery of the said amounts. It therefore appears that the said differential duty is recoverable from the taxpayer under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 12. It has merely stated that the fact of non-payment would not come to notice but for the verification of the audit department. In the absence of any specific allegation and proof that the appellant has suppressed facts, the extended period cannot be invoked. There is no evidence adduced by the department that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The decision....