TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT HIGH COURT] where under it has been held that demand notice cannot be considered as time barred even it is issued after one year from the date of detection of the suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant had admitted to have wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on input invoices/Bills of Entry without receipt of the materials. In my view, therefore, the Ld. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of ₹ 6,22,575/- was noticed. In his statement dt 16.2.2005 Director, Shri Tejraj Ranka, admitted that on the basis of four Bills of Entry, they had availed the credit without receipt of the goods in the factory. On further scrutiny of the records, it was found that the appellant had also availed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 6,23,689/- against five invoices issued by M/s Alok Impex, without re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had filed a written submission dt. 26.7.2015 and requested to decide the Appeals accordingly. In the written submission it is submitted that the demand is barred by limitation in as much as their act of availment of Cenvat Credit without receipt of the material, was known to the department on 16.02.2005, where as the demand was issued after one year from the date of said knowledge. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat Vs. Neminath Fabrics Pvt Ltd, where under it has been held that demand notice cannot be considered as time barred even it is issued after one year from the date of detection of the suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, the appellant had admitted to have wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on input invoices/Bills of Entry without receipt of the materials. In m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
