TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant's books of accounts was audited by the Assistant Commissioner, Audit in March/April 2015 for the period from November 2013-15 and raised an Audit objection dated 27.04.2015 regarding wrong availment of credit of Rs.30,88,313/- on input services by the appellant on said period. During the course of investigation, the appellant reversed the credit availed against the disputed invoice to the extent of Rs.19,58,960/- in April-May 2015. However, a Show Cause Notice dated 27.04.2016 was issued to the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation proposing to disallow and recover credit amounting to Rs.30,88,313/- in terms of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant while submitting the reply to Show Cause Notice raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise Act, 1944. 3. I impose a penalty of Rs.10,57,193/- on them under the provisions of Rule 15(1) & Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 21.08.2018 held that "it is a fit case to remand to Original Adjudicating Authority keeping all options open". Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority considered the matter in de novo adjudication and vide Order-in-Original dated 21.11.2019 held as under: i. I hold that out of the total CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.21,14,385/- in respect of Sl. Nos. 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 01.01.2021 rejected the appeal and aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal filed before this Tribunal. 5. Learned AR for the Department has reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that issue of refund is not subject matter in de-novo adjudication. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is found that the preliminary objection raised by the appellant from the very beginning of the proceedings is regarding invoking extended period of limitation and in spite of repeated proceedings before adjudication and Appellate Authorities, there is no finding to said aspect. Though, the Adjudicating Authority in de no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Customs Vs J.B. V Jewels, 2004 (172) ELT 3 (SC), 34. We find that reference was made by departmental authorities to the proviso appended to sub- section (2) of Section 28 of the Act. No plea about its non-applicability was taken in the grounds of appeal before the CEGAT and though it was vehemently urged that the point was specifically taken before the Tribunal, we find no mention thereof in the CEGAT's order. The matter can be looked at from another angle. If in reality, the CEGAT found that the action taken by the departmental authorities was beyond the period of limitation, it could have disposed of the appeals before it only on that ground without examining the merits. On the contrary, in the absence of any....