2015 (5) TMI 168 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts - Wrong availment of CENVAT Credit - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that extended period of limitation under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11 (A) (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted in this case - Held that:- Reasons so disclosed in the order of the Commissioner have completely been ignored by the Tribunal only on the ground that the law on the legality of the Cenvat credit on the items in questions, has been declared by the Larger Bench in the year 2010 in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)), therefore, no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee, so as to justify the applicability of the longer period of limitation. - Tribunal is not justified in recording such a finding. - under Rule, 2004, a burden is cast upon the manufacturer to ensure that cenvat credit is correctly claimed by them and proper records are maintained in that regard. - The assessee, in response to the show-cause notice had stated that there is no provision in Central Excise Law to disclose the details of the credit or to submit the duty paying documents, which in our opinion is false and an attempt to deliberately contravene the provisions of the Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder with an intent to evade the duty. - facts of the present case clearly suggest willful suppression of material facts by the assessee as well as contravention of the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder with an intent to evade the demand of duty as would be covered by Clauses IV and V of Section 11 A (1) of the Act, 1944. Therefore, the invocation of the extended period of limitation in the facts of the present case is fully justified. - Decided in favour of Revenue.