Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1473 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of differential Duty - Rule 14(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - allegations of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty on inputs cleared “as such” to the appellant’s ancillary manufacturer for the manufacture of components that were finally used by the appellant in the manufacture of final products on which excise duty was paid by adopting incorrect value - extended period of limitation. Held that:- The period involved is from 01.09.2010 to 30.11.2014 for which a Show Cause Notice dated 07.10.2015 is issued, admittedly, after invoking the larger period of limitation. On examination of facts, it is found that the allegation is short payment of duty whereas the lacuna appears to be only the adoption of transaction value by which SAD of 4% which have been missed out, but the fact remains that on being pointed out even before the issuance of Show Cause Notice, the appellant made good even the differential CENVAT Credit. There is no dispute by the authorities below on the issue of revenue neutrality nor have they disputed crucial facts like the inputs cleared as such to one of the appellant’s ancillary manufacturers who in turn is eligible for CENVAT Credit of the duty paid by the appellant; the removal of inputs to its ancillary manufacturer was duly reflected in the periodical ER-1 returns filed regularly and that the Revenue was aware of removal of inputs as such - Revenue has only wasted its energy when there is no revenue loss and therefore, unjustifiably extended the larger period of limitation, for nothing. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|