TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess and not finished goods and therefore, they were not entered in RG I register. Prima facie, we find merit in this plea of the appellant. Moreover, we also find that while the Superintendent had submitted his report on 3.3.2010 and clarifications were given by the appellant on 25.4.2011, but still show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation of one year. In the circumstances of the case, longer period of limitation under section 11A is not invokable in terms of Tribunal's decision in Nectar Lifesciences Ltd. (2013 (8) TMI 843 - CESTAT NEW DELHI). As regards the Cenvat credit demand of ₹ 4,41,949/-, the same is in respect of loss of Cenvat credit availed inputs namely the packing material and solvent, Though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce also demand recovery of interest on the duty/ Cenvat credit and also proposed imposition of penalty. Show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order- in-original dated 11/2/14 by which above mentioned Cenvat credit and duty demands were confirmed against the appellant along with interest and besides this, penalty of equivalent amount was imposed. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 3. Heard both sides in respect of stay petition. 4. Shri Pawan Kumar Pahwa, advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that while the loss of inputs and other goods has been determined on the basis of Superintendents' report submitted to the Commissioner on 3.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be stayed. 5. Shri M S Negi, the learned DR, opposed the stay petition by reiterating the impugned order. He pleaded that so far as Cenvat credit demand of ₹ 4,41,949/- is concerned, the same is in respect of Cenvat credit availed on inputs namely packing material and solvents which were destroyed in the fire and appellant would not be eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of these inputs. As regards the duty of ₹ 95,43,667/- confirmed in respect of goods, which according to the department, were finished goods, he pleaded that this demand is in respect of finished goods destroyed in fire and just because the same were not entered in the RG I register, the appellant cannot claim that the same were not finished goods. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Superintendent had submitted his report on 3.3.2010 and clarifications were given by the appellant on 25.4.2011, but still show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation of one year. In the circumstances of the case, longer period of limitation under section 11A is not invokable in terms of Tribunal's decision in Nectar Lifesciences Ltd. (supra). 7. As regards the Cenvat credit demand of ₹ 4,41,949/-, the same is in respect of loss of Cenvat credit availed inputs namely the packing material and solvent, Though on merits, the appellant would not be eligible for Cenvat credit, the demand for this Cenvat credit is, prima facie, not sustainable as, an discussed above, the same is time barred. 8. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
