Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 620 - CESTAT KOLKATATime Limitation - Cenvat entries were properly reflected in the ER-1 Returns and Stocks and Cenvat details were properly recorded in the RG 23 A Part 1 and Part II Records or not - suppression of facts or not - reversal of CENVAT Credit in respect of five Bills of Entry - demand alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the Range Officials of Pansukra Unit have certified on 20/05/2010 and on 10/06/2011 that no input materials under the Bills of Entry in question were received by that unit nor any Cenvat Credit was taken by them. This combined with the fact that the Appellant unit at B. T. Road has mainlined full records towards receipt and issue of the materials would clarify that the Appellants had received the imported goods at their B. T. Road unit and were correct in taking the Cenvat Credit based on the Bills of Entry. The endorsement behind the Bills of Entry can be ignored as a unintended clerical error. Further it is seen that the Show Cause Notice has been issued after more than 3 years of Cenvat being taken by the Appellant. When Cenvat taken has been reflected in the ER 1 Return and non-taking of Cenvat at Pansukra unit has been verified and certified by the Range Superintendent, the Department cannot allege any suppression on the part of the Appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable even on account of limitation. Appeal filed by the Appellant allowed both on merits as well as on account of limitation.
|