TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch credit stands availed. Such details would be available in RG 23A Part I & Part II accounts being maintained by the appellant and the Revenue is within it powers and jurisdiction to seek such information as regards the input service, if in doubt. The appellant cannot be held guilty of any mala fide suppression or mis-statement. Demand barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/51825/2017-SM - Final Order No. 50677/2018 - Dated:- 19-2-2018 - Hon ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) Ms. Surbhi Sinha, Advocate - for the appellant Shri G. R. Singh, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa After hearing the ld. Advocate Ms. Surbhi Singh and ld. AR Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she strongly assails the impugned order on the point of limitation by submitting that the credit so availed was duly reflected by them in their Cenvat credit account as also in ER-1 returns. As such, as there cannot be any suppression or mis-statement with a malafide intention on the part of the assessee. 5. The ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submits that while showing the credit in ER-1 returns, the appellants have nowhere clarified that the credit was relatable to construction services. He submits that in the era of self assessment, the appellant is bound to follow the correct law and the Revenue cannot be expected to know that the credit was availed in respect of construction services. 6. The appellate authority has not agreed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant that the demand was hit by limitation of time bar. I find that the appellant indeed seems to have suppressed the facts from the department and in the process have also contravened the provisions of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 (as alleged in the impugned notice with intent to avail wrong CENVAT credit and ultimately to evade duty of excise). In view of the above discussion, I am in agreement with findings of the adjudicating authority in para 5 of the impugned order. I am therefore of the considered view that the demand of ₹ 44,84,158/- is not hit by limitation of time bar and is very much sustainable. 7. As is see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
