9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant from the premises of the manufacturer of those capital goods. Based on the invoices issued by the manufacturer of those capital goods, the appellant took cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on those invoices. Taking of cenvat credit was disputed on the ground that the provisions of Rule 3(4) and Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules have not been complied with inasmuch as the appellant is not the consignee of those goods. The SCN issued in this regard was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 13.07.2007, holding that the appellant is eligible for the cenvat credit and non-observance of the procedural formalities cannot take away the substantive right for availment of cenvat credit. Feeli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cenvat credit is not permissible, and as such, the Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in denying the cenvat benefit to the appellant. The Ld. Jt. CDR further submits that since the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, have not been followed by the appellant while taking the cenvat credit, the Department is justified in the invoking the extended period of limitation for issuance of SCN and the proceedings are not barred by limitation of time. 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 6. I find that the invoices have been issued by M/s Hindustan Steels Ltd. in favour of its customer M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd., who is the principal manufacturer of the bottles manufactured by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply to the SCN at page 30 that the appellant had specifically mentioned in the said reply that Department was aware about the disputed documents on 28.10.2003 during the course audit of books of accounts in the factory of the appellant. Since the facts were known to the Department regarding taking of cenvat credit on the disputed invoices way back in 2003, the Show Cause proceedings initiated in 2006 is clearly barred by limitation of time and the demand cannot be fastened against the appellant. In this context the law is well settled that when the facts are known to both the sides, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the duty demand. 8. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
