TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) upheld the Order-In-Original dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-II and confirmed the disallowance of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 9,08,676/- for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13 against the appellant-assessee with interest and equivalent penalty under various provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") read with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"). 1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:- a. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of writing paper and printing paper, newsprint, etc. falling under Chapter 48 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss. The said show cause notice also proposed imposition of interest and equivalent penalty. e. The Appellant filed its reply dated 24.03.2015 against the aforesaid show cause notice and contested the proceedings. Written submissions dated 17.03.2016 were also filed before the adjudicating authority. f. Vide an Order-In-Original dated 08.06.2016 the adjudicating authority confirmed the purported demands against the Appellant. g. Aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication order the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected vide the impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 28.12.2017. h. Dissatisfied with the above Order-in-Appeal dated 28.12.2017, the appellant filed the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee:- a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vapi -versus- M/s Madura Industries Textiles, 2012-TIOL- 1094-HC-AHM-CX; b) Rama Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. -versus- Commissioner, 2016(339) ELT 147(T) ------------Commissioner -versus- Rama Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., 2016(339) ELT A52 (Guj.); c) Commissioner of C. Excise -versus - PragBosimi Synthetics, 2013(295) ELT 682(Gau.); d) Union of India -versus- Kamakhya Cosmetics & Pharmaceutical, 2015(323) ELT 33(Gau.); e) DharampalSatyapal Ltd. -versus- Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex. Shillong, 2015(323) ELT 55(Gau.); f) M/s DharampalSatyapal Ltd. -versus- Commissioner, 2017-TIOL-4124-CESTAT-KOL; g) Indian Steel Corporation Ltd. -ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Credit had been disclosed in the monthly Central Excise returns duly filed by the appellant. In such circumstances, there was no rational at all for sustaining demands under the extended period of limitation. 3. Shri K.Chowdhury, Ld.Authorized Representative for the respondent-Revenue re-iterated the findings and observations in the impugned Order-In-Appeal and prayed for dismissing the instant Appeal. 4. I have perused the case records carefully and taken note of the submissions urged on behalf of each side, including the written submissions filed by the appellant. The moot issue involved in the present appeal is whether basic Central Excise duty credit can be utilized for payment of E Cess and SHE Cess. Although extensive argumen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed during adjudication and a mere statement in the Order-In-Original dated 08.06.2016 that the appellant had suppressed material facts from the Department and that the purported contravention had been detected only during audit was insufficient justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. Thus, there being no clear and explicit allegation against the appellant in the show cause notice with regard to suppression of facts or fraud or wilful mis-representation or intentional evasion of duty, it automatically follows that the purported show cause proceedings against the appellant were barred by limitation. 7. I also find that the assessee could not have been faulted for its conduct, even if it were to be held that cross util....