9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.3.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pig iron and unmachined casting falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y written off during the year 2009-10 and the obligation to reverse CENVAT credit in case of partial written off of inputs and capital goods came into existence w.e.f 1.3.2011 and not prior to the said date. But the Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal by ignoring the defence of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire demand is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the audit was conducted on 31.1.2010 for the year 2009-10 and the show-cause notice was issued on 20.3.2015 which is beyond the limitation period. He further submitted that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant because from the beginning the appellant has clarified its stand by writing various letters during the year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions to write off was partially made. I find that this provision to reverse the proportionate CENVAT credit on partially write off came into existence from 1.3.2011 whereas the period involved in the present case is 2009-10. I find that the inventory against which the partial write off was made was available with the appellant and there was no physical removal of the goods. In reply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
