9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar: The present appeal is preferred against Order-in-Appeal No.28/CE/APPL/NOIDA/07 dated 30.03.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturers of Air Conditioners and its parts and availed Cenvat facility and were registered with the department. During the period from 26.07.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34,546.48/-. In the meantime, the appellant reversed Rs. 1,91,389/- through various entries dated 21.07.2002, 31.08.2002, 31.10.2002 and 05.01.2003, treating the said amount as attributable Cenvat Credit availed on the inputs that have gone into the manufacture of said exempted goods. The Original Authority through Order-in-Original No.17/AC/N-IV/06 dated 12.12.2006, held that the appellant suppre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Cenvat Credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods, in the RT-12 returns as RG-23A part-II register and PLA register, they clearly mentioned that amount has been paid on reversal of Cenvat Credit of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods and there are large number of Ruling by various appellate fora that reversal of Cenvat Credit amounts to non-availment of Cenvat C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , covering the situation in the present case. 6. The Ld. DR for Revenue has supported the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. We have taken into consideration the rival contentions. The grounds of appeal very clearly established that the show cause notice is hit by limitation. Therefore, we hold that the impugned show cause notice is not sustainable. Therefore, we set aside both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
