Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 437 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - it has been argued by Revenue that the extended period of limitation has been invoked as the appellant neither disclosed the facts to the department voluntarily that they were undertaking the trading activity nor they paid the amount as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) ibid - reversal of CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- It was detected by the officers of the department on scrutiny of their records and this lead to the inference that the facts were suppressed and in the absence of detection by the officers of the department, they would have gone unnoticed. So far as suppression is concerned after going through the case records I do not find any suppression on the part of the appellants. As per records, audit of their records has been regularly done by the Central Excise Department during the years in question and during the course of the audit all the transactions including the transactions in question i.e. alleged trading transactions were also got regularly audited as mostly those transactions were done under the cover of proper Central Excise Invoices and it was also reflected in the books of accounts/RG-1/ER-1 returns of the appellant. As per the appellant despite disclosing everything, no objection was raised by any of the Central Excise Department official who conducted the audit during all those years. It cannot be said that the transactions in question were suppressed by the appellant from the department with malafide intention to evade payment of duty or to take wrong credit. If something or anything wrong was there then it was incumbent on the Department to raise objection at the time of audit itself during all those years but the same was not done. The entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|