TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear that a part of the relief was given to the assessee for Cenvat Credit in respect of Ten consignments, because the assessee could relate the “Sales Returns” to the original sales invoices through the Lorry Receipts with respect to said Ten consignments but for the remaining four consignments, such Cenvat Credit could not be allowed for want of relevant corroborative evidence produced by the assessee. Scope of SCN - Held that:- The Show Cause Notice given to the assessee in the present case was for disallowing the Cenvat Credit and therefore after having examined each and every transaction, if the Appellate Authorities who are the fact finding authorities under the Act have returned such findings of facts based on evidence, the same ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2009 (243) E.L.T.419 (Tri-Ahmd)] iii) BAPL Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006 (198) E.L.T.587 (Tri.-Chennai )] He further submitted that the extended period has wrongly been invoked in this case as there was no suppression of facts but the case of the appellant was made out on the basis of records audited by the Revenue. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following case laws: i) CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)] ii) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE (1996 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] 7. On the other hand learned Commissioner (A.R.) reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law because the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments correlating the return of the goods, he has been given benefit of the same and wherever the appellant has not been able to produce any document to substantiate their claim of return of the goods to the assessee as ordered by the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) and based on copies of the RBA invoices, this could not be established or proved that the goods were actually received by the appellant. Further in my considered view, the extended period has rightly been invoked as the appellant has suppressed the facts from the department that he was availing credit on the RBA series of invoices. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order and I uphold the same and dismiss the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturned the findings beyond the case as per allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice given to the assessee in the present case for disallowing the Cenvat Credit to him on the Sales Returns made in the period in question. He relied upon certain judgments in support of the said contention which are cited below for ready reference : - 1. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Surat vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited [2015 (326) ELT 3 9(SC)]; 2. C.C.E., C. S.T., Belgaum vs Swarnagiri Wire Insulations Private Limited [2014 (301) ELT 46 (Kar)]; 3. Godrej Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2008 (229) ELT 484 (SC)] and 4. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs Ballarpur Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly recorded finding that the partial relief to the extent of four consignments could not be given to the assessee for want of corroborative evidence. There is no question of these authorities going beyond the parameters of the Show Cause Notice. The Show Cause Notice given to the assessee in the present case was for disallowing the Cenvat Credit and therefore after having examined each and every transaction, if the Appellate Authorities who are the fact finding authorities under the Act have returned such findings of facts based on evidence, the same cannot be assailed on the ground that they have gone beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. 11. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
