TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, 1985. For manufacture of the said final products....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The Ld.Advocate for the Appellant assessee made the followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12-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. -versus- Commissioner of C.EX & S. T., Rajkot, 2018(360) ELT 137(T) ------- Commissioner -versus- Indian Steel Corporation Ltd., 2018(360) ELT A34 (Guj.); h) Asia Motor Wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod 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 arguments have been advanced by both parties with respect to the merits of the matter, in my opinion, the present appeal may be disposed of on the short point of limitation. 5. There can be no doubt tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 utilization of basic Excise Duty credit for payment of E Cess and SHE Cess was prohibited under the Rules. In the case of M/s Madura Industrial Textiles, supra, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had considered....