TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The impugned show cause notice has not established the intention to evade duty since the contentions of the appellant covered by pronouncement in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. was brought to the notice of the department before the issue of show cause notice. Therefore, I hold that the show cause notice is hit by limitation. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/1341/2009-EX (SM) - Final Order No. 70492/2016 - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Shri Atul Gupta Shri Hrishikesh, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Superintendent) A.R. ORDER The present appeal is preferred against Order-in-Appeal No.101/CE/NOIDA/09 dated 30.03.2009 passed by Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said show cause notice there was proposal to demand and recovered Cenvat credit amount to ₹ 10,62,486/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 25/J.C./Noida/2008 dated 11.09.2008 by Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, NOIDA. Appellants contended before the original authority that as held in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. and others pronouncement they were not required to reverse the Cenvat credit on used capital goods removed from their unit to another unit and they also stated that goods have been cleared after issuing proper invoice as provided under the Rules, it has been taken in Books of Accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the appellant on merit, we find that a show cause notice was issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 alleging that the assessee for the period 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 had wrongly taken/utilized Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 13,35,804/-. We find that an audit was conducted in the month of March, 2010 and a show cause notice was issued in January, 2012, i.e. after a gap of 22 months. The issue with regard to mis statement 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 mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and Order-in-Appeal. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. I find force in the contention of the appellant. I find that within the parameters of the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad as ruled in the above stated case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd., Tirunelveli if the show cause notice is to be issued for extended period the intention to evade payment of duty has to be established. The impugned show cause notice has not established the intention to evade duty since the contentions of the appellant covered by pronouncement in the case of Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. was brought to the notice of the department before the issue of show cause notice. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
