TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-4-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. Mayur Shroff, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. S.V. Nair, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that appellant have availed the Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods on 16-5-2004. On pointed out by the department that the said capital goods was exclusively used for manufacture of job work goods i.e without payment of duty, therefore the appellant reversed the credit alongwith interest on 26-2-2005. The appellant also filed letter dated 27-1-2005 in terms of Section 11A(2B) requesting department not to issue any show cause notice. No show cause notice was issued. Subsequently on 28-5-2005 appellant realized that capital goods us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xempted goods, accordingly credit is admissible, hence suo moto recredit taken by the appellant is legally correct and same cannot be demanded. In this regard he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of C.E., C.E., S.T. Bangalore Vs. Stumpp, Scheule Somap 114 P. Ltd.- 2015(319)ELT 146 (Tri.-Bang.) (b) Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad-I-2013 (291)ELT 399 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (c) Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara-I- 2013(291)ELT 70(Tri-Ahmd.) (d) ICMC Corporation Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai-2014(302)ELT 45 (Mad.) (e) Krishnav Engineering Ltd. Vs. CESTAT- 2016(331)ELT391(All.) (f) STI Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o recredit is illegal and the same cannot be permitted. He placed reliance on Larger Bench decision in case of BDH Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals), Mumbai-I[2008(229) ELT (Tri. LB)]. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. I find that the present appeal can be disposed of on limitation taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case. In this regard, I find that suo moto re-credit whether rightly or wrongly was taken by the appellant and the same was declared in their Cenvat account and also in ER1 return for the month of May, 2005. Most important factor is that the appellant have clearly disclosed the fact of their suo moto credit before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Rules, and Act, hence refund claim is not admissible to them. I therefore pass the following order as under: From the above facts that appellant have declared their suo moto recredit in their ER1 return and in the Cenvat account and also disclosed the fact before jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. The fact of suo moto re-credit was very much in the knowledge of the department. The show cause notice was issued after normal period of one year i.e. on 26-2-2008. As per the facts elaborated above there is no suppression of facts for taking suo moto credit by the appellant, hence demand is clearly time bar. I am therefore not going into merit of the case, whether suo moto credit is right or wrong but the demand is hit by limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
