9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directed against the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Chips, Printing ink and Adhesives, the final products, falling under Chapter heading No.39, 32 & 35 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty was imposed on the appellant. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the order of adjudication. Hence the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the capital goods removed from the factory on 23.11.2007 were procured by the appellant on 23.09.1996 under the cover of invoice No.43. Thus, he submits that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmations regarding taking of initial cenvat credit on the capital goods and removal of the same in the shape of old and used capital goods, were known to the Department in the year 2007, the show cause notice issued on 24th June, 2009, is barred by limitation of time. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submits that straight line method on calculation of the cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit. The particulars of credit taken and other details, were duly reflected in the invoice issued by the appellant. Thus, it is not a case that the appellant had suppressed the fact regarding removal of capital goods, with the intention to evade payment of Central Excise Duty. Since, as a registered assessee, the appellant has complied with the requirement of the Central Excise statute on removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
