TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of capital goods and to that extent certificate issued by Chartered Engineer was produced which was doubted by both the lower authorities. Therefore, inference of suppression of facts cannot be drawn. Therefore, after relying on the decision of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (2015 (1) TMI 760 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) I hold that in this case the allegation of suppression of facts is not sustainable against the appellant. Consequently, extended period of limitation is not invokable. - demands against the appellant are barred by limitation. Consequently, impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 53065 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit availed on 21.4.2009 which was replied by the appellant on 2.11.2009. But show cause notice has been issued on 14.12.2011 which is highly time barred. Therefore, demands are not sustainable in the light of decision of High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE vs. Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. [ 2015 (317) ELT 408 (All) ]. Therefore extended period of limitation is not invokable and consequently impugned order qua demand of duty along with interest and imposition of penalty be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned AR strongly opposed the contention of learned Counsel and submits that the appellant has taken inadmissible Cenvat credit without informing to the department and it is only during the course of audit, it came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nths. The issue with regard to misstatement or suppression of fact came to the knowledge of the department at the time when the audit was conducted in the month of March, 2010. Under Section 11A of the Act, a notice can be given within one year from the relevant date. In the instant case, the notice was given after 22 months i.e. much beyond the period of limitation . 7. The Hon ble High Court of Allahabad has observed as under: 5. We are of the opinion that the proviso to Section 11A is not applicable because the show cause notice does not indicate that there was deliberate act of suppression of fact, fraud, mis-statement, etc. committed by the assessee. Mere act of omission by the assessee without there being any intention to eva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
