TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit - similar issue decided in the case of NATIONAL STEELS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI [2005 (10) TMI 194 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.50664 of 2014 - A/56312/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the Appellants Shri K Poddar, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the cenvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s. Mahabir Prasad Co. sought to be denied to the appellant for the period January to June, 1995 by issuance of show cause notice dated 13.5.1999. 2. The b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of same investigation a case was booked against National Steel [2006 (205) ELT 522 (Tri-Del)] and it was held that show cause notice is not sustainable. He also relied on the decision of Juhi Alloys [2014 (302) ELT 487 (All)] to say that without showing any deliberate role of appellant, cenvat credit cannot be denied. He also relied on the decision of Nidhi Metal Auto - [2016 (343) ELT 573 (Tri-Del)] to say that for so called mis-chief on the part of the suppler, cenvat credit cannot be denied to the receiver. 4. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further statements were recorded of the current appellant. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held that the investigation was in progress. 8. The Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Gannon India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Goa [2002 (146) E.L.T. 173] has held that Demand - Limitation - Delay in issue of show cause notice - Show cause notice issued after two years of completion of enquiry - Suppression of facts - Appellant s contention that the construction of bridge was before the eyes of the general public hence no suppression, accepted - period of delay in issuing show cause notice being identical to the period of delay in J.S.L. Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad [1999 (109) E.L.T. 316 (Tri.)], demand being time barred, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
