TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In a catena of judgements, the Supreme Court has clarified that when the fact is within the knowledge of the department, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Again it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the credit when reversed before utilization of the same would amount to not taking credit. Taking into consideration these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that department has been able to establish fraud, or suppression with intention to evade payment of duty so as to invoke extended period. I am of the view that the demand is barred by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/55994/2014-Ex-SM - Final Order No.53100/2015 - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - Smt.Sulekha Beev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposing equal amount of penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued both on the issue of limitation as well as on merits of the case. With regard to the issue of limitation, learned Counsel urged that the fact was in the knowledge of the department on 2.1.2008 itself and the show cause notice issued after four years is barred by limitation. It is submitted that on pointing out, the appellant had reversed the credit and intimated the department on 9.1.2008, itself alongwith details showing credit balance. It is the case of the appellant that only to escape from the delay the summons was issued to the production manager and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of limitation has been rightly invoked by the adjudicating authority. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. The credit has been reversed by the appellant on 9.1.2008. In the letter informing the department about reversal of credit, the appellant has furnished the details of credit balance to make it clear that though they availed the credit, the same has not been utilized. Opening balance is shown as ₹ 20,86,064.85. After, reversal of ₹ 3,86,168/-, the balance is shown as ₹ 16,99,896.85. It is not disputed by the department that the credit was reversed before utilization of the same. According to the department, the credit was not reversed alongwith interest. It is also contended that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the factory. If there was fraud it is for the department to establish the same. In a catena of judgements, the Supreme Court has clarified that when the fact is within the knowledge of the department, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Again it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the credit when reversed before utilization of the same would amount to not taking credit. Taking into consideration these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that department has been able to establish fraud, or suppression with intention to evade payment of duty so as to invoke extended period. I am of the view that the demand is barred by limitation. As the issue of limitation is answered in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
