2022 (10) TMI 1004

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s rightly issued invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle/Tractors falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA) and has been availing Cenvat Credit on various eligible inputs, capital goods and input services in accordance with the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, the appellant has been filing the monthly ER-1 Return without any default. The appellant has more than 80 spare divisions located across India to cater to the requirement of customers. The present dispute relates to spare division located in Jaipur. 3. After verification of the records, a show cause notice d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use notice, which are essential requirement for raising a demand for extended period. Even the applicable provision of extended period under Section 11 A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been invoked in the impugned show cause notice. 5. The appellant filed a detailed reply vide its letter dated 9.12.2019 explaining the usage of the items/goods in dispute contending that credit has been availed in accordance with law and further, there is no short payment of excise duty as alleged by the Department. Further, the assertion in the impugned show cause notice is factually incorrect and is vague, as it does not spell out the allegation clearly. 6. The ld. Assistant Commissioner vide the order-in-original dated 4.9.2020 passed an ex p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cenvat credit on the same is allowable. 11. So far credit of capital goods viz. Induction lamps, Lift table are concerned, I find that these are essential for use in the factory, without which taxable finished goods cannot be manufactured. 12. Further, the contention of the appellant, these inputs or goods have been used inside the factory, has not been found to be untrue. 13. In the alternative, it appears that the items used in the factory are inputs as defined. In Rule 2 (k), as admittedly, the cenvat credit on the materials used in the factory of the appellant is allowable. 14. So far the demand of Rs.90,665/- is concerned, it is alleged in the show cause notice that during re-conciliation of the assessable value shown in ER-1 Retur....