9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that appellants had availed credit on parts of Mobile Tower Crane (MTC) whereas the appellants have neither manufactured nor cleared these goods. Also that the copies of Bills of Entry (B/E) under which the inputs were imported did not tally with regard to the description of inputs and also their value. The show cause notice issued on the above allegations finalized in the order dated 9.11.2012 which disallowed the credit. Being aggrieved the appellants filed appeal and vide above impugned order, the same was upheld. Hence this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for appellant advanced his arguments both on merits as well as on the issue of limitation. The period in dispute is 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Regarding the allegation, the MTC wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to manufacture of final product. That MTC was neither manufactured or cleared by the appellant. He referred to the discrepancies in the description of goods in the Bill of Entry and invoices and submitted that there is much variation and that the appellants are not entitled for credit. 4. I have heard the submissions and perused the records carefully. The first ground on which credit is denied is that appellant never manufactured/cleared any MTC. The records did not show any sale of MTC. Therefore, credit was denied on the presumption that inputs were not used in the manufacture of MTC. It is seen from records that appellants have explained in their reply to the show cause notice that the inputs imported were stock transferred under prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slew Ring, S-Ring CBE-1200. I cannot agree with the contention of the Respondents that these are major discrepancies on which the benefit of credit can be denied. I do not find any markable variation in the description of inputs in these documents. 6. The show cause notice is dated 20.05.2011. The demand is for the period 2006-2007 to 2007-2008. The appellant has been filing periodical returns and availing credit. No wilful mis-statement or suppression with intention to evade duty is established against the appellants. In such circumstances the extended period is not invokable. The demand is therefore time barred. The substantial issue as well as the issue on limitation is found in favour of appellant. 7. In the result, the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
