TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances, I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Yashwant Industries (2011 (1) TMI 997 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) - for the period the appellant has reversed the excess cenvat credit availed along with interest. As allegation against the appellant is that they have taken cenvat credit wrongly, it means that they have taken the cenvat credit by mistake. In these circumstances, penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act is not imposable. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 57964 of 2013-(SM) - - - Dated:- 22-5-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in in March, 2008 audit was done by CERA for the period March,2008 and finally audit was done by Central Excise audit team Group 4 for the period from 15.3.10 to 18.3.10 for the audited period from January, 2008 to February, 2010. The Central Excise Audit team Group infact pointed out to the appellant that they have taken Cenvat credit as per formula prescribed under Rule 3(7) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. The appellant immediately on pointing out, reversed the Cenvat credit of ₹ 5,67,730/- which was pertaining to the period of limitation but show cause notice was issued by invoking extended period of limitation. 4. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable and it was only a mistake of the appellant having availed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention to take inadmissible cenvat credit. When show cause notice itself is alleging that appellant has taken cenvat credit wrongly and same has been supported by earlier audit. When the facts of wrong availment of credit was pointed out to the appellant they reversed the excess cenvat credit availe by them. In these circumstances, I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Yashwant Industries (supra) wherein the Tribunal has under: 5. After hearing the ld. DR, we found that on merits, the respondents do not have any case, as it is well settled law that the cost of moulds and dies are to be amortized in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the respondents. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bajaj Auto Ltd. It is also on record that the statements of the respondents have been recorded in January, 1999 and a show-cause notice has been issued in November, 2000. In that event, when the audit party has not taken any objection for non-inclusion of the amortized cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value by the respondents, allegation of suppression does not survive as held by the lower appellate authority. The case laws cited by the Ld. DR are not relevant to the facts of the case as in those cases no audit took place when the suppression was alleged. It is the duty of the audit party to audit the records and to point out the discrepancies found out during the course of audit. In the case of Agrico Engineering Works (India) Pvt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
