TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -6-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, REPRESENTED BY : Shri M. Neerav, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Mall, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods viz. fabricated display items of fibre glass, acrylics ABS, Signage fabricated items with or without light etc. The dispute in the present appeal relates to availment of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on the input services totally amounting to Rs. 5,43,200/- (Rupees Five Lakhs, Forty Three Thousands, Two Hundreds only). The Show Cause Notice dt. 17-8-09 was issued to the appellant, alleging that during the period August 2004 to November 2006, the appellant had availed the said credit on the strength of invoices issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f justice and not mistress of law but the procedures and rules are made to ensure that the benefit granted by the Government is not misused. He further observed that in the present case, the appellant is having number of divisions and it does not stand proved as to whether the credit so availed was used for dutiable products or services. Accordingly, he did not find favour with the appellant on two grounds. 5. As regards the invocation of longer period, he observed that no doubt, the appellants have filed regularly the ER-1 returns. The said returns have one column i.e. credit taken on the input services and the amount so availed. The said returns did not show that the appellants were availing credit of Service Tax paid on the invoices in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so find the demand to be barred by limitation. Admittedly, the Show Cause Notice stands issued beyond the normal period of limitation. Commissioner (Appeals) has himself observed that there is no column or provision in ER-1 return to show as to whether the invoices are in the name of appellant or in the name of head office. If that be so, I really fail to understand as to how the appellant can be held guilty of any suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade duty. If law does not require them to disclose the above facts, failure to disclose the same, by itself, cannot be equated with any suppression or mis-statement. 8. I, accordingly, hold the demand to be barred by limitation. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
