TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the demand for the period prior to 1.4.2011 is set-aside. Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not? - Held that: - the appellant was filing the regular ER-1 Returns and availment of cenvat credit was in the knowledge of the department and the case of the revenue is that the revenue came to know of the fact of trading activity to their financial records which is a public records. No other positive evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to alleged suppression of facts on the part of the appellant - extended period not invokable - penalty also not invokable. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for correct quantification of demand for the period within limitation as per for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y at the rate of 6% value of credited as prior to 1.4.2011 trading activity was not an exempted service. (b) The extended period of limitation is not invokable. (c) There is a calculation error to demand @ 6% of the value of trading activity, therefore, the matter be remanded back for proper calculation of demand. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. In this case there is no dispute that trading activity is having no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant, therefore, the said issue is no issue matter. 6.1. The next issue is before me that whether prior to 1.4.2011, the appellant was entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, therefore, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Madhu Silica Pvt. Limited and Ors. Vs. CCE, Bhavnagar vide Final order No. A/1148-1151/WZB/AHD/201 0 dated 16.08.2010. which this Tribunal has observed as under:- Though, we find that the appellants have a good case for disposal of appeal on merits yet we restrict ourselves to the limitation issue. Admittedly the demand was raised on 31.03.2003, for the clearances of the samples during the period 1995-2001. This is again an admitted fact on record that no excisable goods were manufactured by the appellants by using the result of Research and Developments conducted in their laboratory. The Research and Development charges recovered by the appellants from Hindusta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
