TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit was availed, the assessee cannot be blamed for not disclosing the said fact - For invoking the longer period of limitation, there has to be a suppression or mis-statement with an intent to evade payment of duty - When the respondents have reflected the amount of credit availed by them in their monthly returns, it cannot be said that there was any positive act of suppression of mis-statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of customers. The said notices were adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand by denying the Cenvat credit. However, it is seen that during original jurisdiction, adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty on the respondents by observing as under:- However, imposition of penalty by invoking the provisions of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is unnecess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the limitation period. In a nutshell, he allowed the appeal on point of limitation. As regards the Revenue s appeal, he observed that as the extended period of limitation has been held as not applicable, the revenue s appeal on the point of penalty has no relevance. He, accordingly, rejected the same. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty. When the respondents have reflected the amount of credit availed by them in their monthly returns, it cannot be said that there was any positive act of suppression of mis-statement on their part. As such, we are of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held a part of the demands as barred by limitation. 5. We further, note that the original adjudicating authority, while not imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
