TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(drawback) Rules, 1995 . The drawback is admissible on the exported goods and the conditions that no Cenvat Credit of input and input services is availed in respect of the goods exported. 2. The appellant vide their letter dated 28.04.2008 intimated the department that they have started exporting goods with effect from 01.04.2008 under claim for duty drawback and they have reversed Cenvat Credit on the stock of raw material, stock under process etc. lying as on 31.03.2008. The appellant has also enclosed a calculation sheet of the reversal of the Cenvat Credit as well as the stocks of the various raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods along with their letter dated 28.04.2008. 3. The department during the course of an audit of the financial records of the appellant for the period of December 2010 to April 2011, has contended that appellant have short reversed the Cenvat Credit on the duty involved on dyes and chemicals, furnace oil, packing materials used on the finished goods exported under duty drawback scheme. On the basis of above contention the department had issued a show cause notice dated 29.03.2013 demanding Cenvat Credit of Rs. 59,21,429/- invoking the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eters of processed fabric comes to Rs.3.84 per meter. 4.5 The following details of stock as on 31.3.2008 has been provided in the impugned show cause notice: Particulars Stock Grey Fabric Manufactured : a) Grey Fabric Mfgd. by Yarn on which sizing is done b) Weaved fabric at loom stage (undergone sizing process) by WIP of Sizing Yarn 1477794 Meters 62109 Kgs Processed fabric lying in stock manufactured out of: a) Yarn purchased and grey fabric manufactured 1461583.00 Mtr. b)Grey purchased from outside & No Sizing is done on c) Grey received for processing on job work 498899.00 Mtr. 962683.00 Mtr. 412824.00 Mtr. Made ups (Finished goods) including WIP a) Yarn purchase for Grey Fabric Manufactured 1418804.00 Mtr. b) Grey Fabric purchased from outside 484297.00 Mtr. 934507.00 Mtr. 4.6 Based on the above details of processed fabrics manufactured by the Appellants either at their factory or on job work basis or purchased from outside, the credit reversal done by the Appellants is correct and the entire demand of Rs.59,21.429/- is liable to be set aside. (i) Demand of Rs.3.22,765/- on dyes and chemicals used in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso liable to be set aside. The Appellants have availed Cenvat credit of packing material only on that quantity of goods which have been used in the manufacture of dutiable goods. No Cenvat credit has been availed on packing material used for the manufacture of exempted goods. Demand of Rs. 12.64,748/- on packing material is also liable to be set aside. (viii) Demand of Rs.8,96,744/- is not sustainable. No credit was availed during the year 2008- 2009 on any goods exported under claim for drawback. The department cannot demand reversal of credit mechanically. The burden is on the department to prove that credit has been taken on goods exported under claim for drawback. 5. The Entire demand is barred by limitation The Appellants submit that w.e.f. 28.4.2008 they decided to export their goods under claim for Drawback in respect of all goods exported. The Appellants intimated the department about the aforesaid fact vide their letter dated 28.4.2008 with details of Cenvat Credit reversals. Thus, on 28.4.2008 itself the department was aware of the fact that the Appellants are clearing goods for export under claim for drawback (without Cenvat). The department is also aware of the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f section 11A(4) Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the elements of fraud, collusion, any willful misstatements, suppression of facts or contravention of the any of the provisions of this act or of the rules with an intention to evade payment of duty has to be made out. We find that in this case none of the above elements are available as the appellant has made it known to the department on 28.04.2008 regarding reversal of the Cenvat Credit which have been availed previously by them on certain inputs and goods under process. The impugned show cause notice came to be issued on 29.03.2013 invoking the extended time proviso under section 11A(4) of the central excise act 1994 read with rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit rule 2004 which is not legally sustainable we are therefore are of view that the show cause notice is hit by period of limitation and we hold that extended time proviso is not invokable in this case as the department was in know of facts since 28.04.2008. The show cause notice has been issued in the month of March, 2013 much beyond the normal period of limitation. We therefore hold that the impugned show cause notice as well as impugned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was due to mis-interpretation of the classification list, suppression of facts could not be alleged. From this judgment, it is therefore clear that since the Excise authorities had collected samples of the products manufactured by the appellant and inspected the products and the relevant facts were very much in the knowledge of the Excise authorities and nothing could be shown by the Excise authorities that there was any deliberate attempt of non-disclosure to escape duty, no claim as to "suppression of facts" could be entertained for the purpose of invoking the extended period of limitation within the meaning of proviso to Section 11A of the Act. 29. Similarly, in the case of Collector, Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. Dabur India Ltd. (2005 (121) ECR 129 (SC)], this Court held that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department as classification lists filed by the Assessee were duly approved by the authorities from time to time. In that decision this Court followed its earlier judgment in O.K. Play (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Delhi-III (Gurgaon) [2005 (66) RLT 657 (SC)], held that in cases where classification lists filed by the Assesse....