Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 389 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit in respect of SAD - Removal of inputs as such or transfer by sale covered under Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? - case of appellant is that the reversal took place but they cannot substantiate it as adjudication has taken place after a delay of 10 years from the date of issuance of SCN - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- he Show Cause Notice dated 23.11.2011 has been adjudicated vide order impugned herein dated 21.9.2021. There is a delay of 10 years in adjudicating the matter. It is seen that the appellant had replied to the Show Cause Notice on 31.5.2012. The original authority has dropped demand of Rs.5,63,42,519/- with regard to the slum sales to Mobis India Ltd. Only a demand of Rs.28,17,475/- has been confirmed alleging that the appellant has not reversed the credit in respect of the SAD. When the appellants have given detail reply to the Show Cause Notice and also filed ER-1 returns reflecting the reversal of credit made by them, the confirmation of demand after a period of 10 years alleging that the appellants have not been able to establish the reversal by producing sufficient document is indeed not fair to the appellant. The observation made by the adjudicating authority for confirming the demand is that the appellants have not provided any evidence to show that they have reversed the SAD in respect of the imported materials cleared as such. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PARLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2020 (11) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the inordinate delay of 13 years in adjudicating the Show Cause Notice is untenable. It has merely stated that the fact of non-payment would not come to notice but for the verification of the audit department. In the absence of any specific allegation and proof that the appellant has suppressed facts, the extended period cannot be invoked. There is no evidence adduced by the department that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The decisions relied by the learned counsel in the case of KAUR & SINGH VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI [1996 (11) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT] apply to the facts of this case, where it was held that Which ground is alleged against the assessee must be made known to him, and there is no scope for assuming that the ground is implicit in the issuance of the show cause notice. The appellant succeeds on the ground of limitation. The demand is held to be time-barred - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|