TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endum issued on 17.07.2007 is attempted to be treated as a show cause notice, the said corrigendum falls fatally short of the requirement of a notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 inasmuch as the said corrigendum does not even mention Section 73 ibid anywhere at all and it also does not contain any grounds to allege as to how the recovery, even if the said credit was held to be inadmissible, was not hit by time bar. Indeed the said corrigendum nowhere requires the appellants to show cause as to why the said amount should not be held inadmissible and why / how the same is recoverable without being hit by time bar. It merely stated that the said amount appeared to be not admissible to them and then straightaway called upon the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner issued a corrigendum (dated 17.07.2007) to the earlier show cause notice stating that as the appellants had taken credit to the tune of ₹ 11,18,182/- on the strength of the invoices for capital goods issued by their Head Office, the same was not admissible as their Head Office was not registered as a registered dealer and therefore asking why their refund should not be rejected to the extent of ₹ 11,18,182/-. The appellants contended that the refund sought was of the excess amount paid by them which should be sanctioned and that the amount of cenvat credit on capital goods (Rs.11,18,182/-) was rightly taken on the strength of the documents issued by their Head Office in respect of the capital goods actually used by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Finance Act, 1994 inasmuch as the said corrigendum does not even mention Section 73 ibid anywhere at all and it also does not contain any grounds to allege as to how the recovery, even if the said credit was held to be inadmissible, was not hit by time bar. Indeed the said corrigendum nowhere requires the appellants to show cause as to why the said amount should not be held inadmissible and why / how the same is recoverable without being hit by time bar. It merely stated that the said amount appeared to be not admissible to them and then straightaway called upon the appellants to show cause as to why the refund claim should not be rejected to the extent of ₹ 11,18,182/-. 3. While it is arguable that the amount of ₹ 11,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
