TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducts” - it is also found that both the authorities below are reading a non-existent condition into the definition of capital goods which is impermissible. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - it is not sufficient to invoke extended period of limitation as the department has not brought any evidence to prove suppression. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/27994/2013-SM - Final Order No. 20323/2016 - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) Shri N. Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Parashiva Murthy, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 6-8-2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Commissioner who vide the impugned order upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appellant s appeal. 2. Heard both parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by misconstruing the definition of capital goods as contained in Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that as per Rule 2(a)(A)(i)(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the imported extruder machines qualify as capital goods and the said definition nowhere provided that the goods are to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. He further submitted that department is reading a condition which is non-existent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (189) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)]. Learned counsel further submitted that the show cause notice is barred by time as the same has not been issued within one year from the date of knowledge of payment as per the provisions of Section 11A(2B) of the Act. The appellant had reversed the entire Cenvat credit on 28-1-2010 and hence the notice should have been issued on or before 27-1-2011 but the same was issued on 11-4-2011. On the other hand learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the imported machine was not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the credit availed on such capital goods is not permissible under law. 4. After considering the submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
