9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey had taken CENVAT Credit on input services during the months of November 2014 and December 2014 of an amount of Rs. 21,29,851/- beyond the period of six months from the date of issue of invoices. During the relevant period, in terms of Rule 9 (1) of CCR 2004, CENVAT Credit could be taken by the assessee only within six months from the date of issue of invoices. On being pointed out, the respondent reversed the CENVAT amount in their CENVAT account and reflected the same in their ER1 returns in the month of April 2016. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 02.12.2016 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation demanding to recover the CENVAT credit of the aforesaid amount along with interest. It was also proposed to appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied and the penalty imposed by the lower authority may be restored. 4. I have considered the arguments made and perused the records of the case. Para 4 of the show cause notice reads as follows: "The assessee have not intimated to the department for utilizing the CENVAT Credit on the above said amount and even in the ER.1 returns filed by them from time to time. The fact was detected only after verification of the records by the Central Excise Officers. The credit taken by the assessee appears to be irregular in terms of Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and proviso 5 of Rule 4(7) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Even then, it appears that the assessee has taken CENVAT Credit with an intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, it appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case, came to the conclusion that intent to evade tax cannot be attributed to the appellant. Accordingly, he set aside the penalty. As the department is now insisting on the imposition of penalty on the ground that once extended period of limitation is invoked, penalty cannot be set aside, I proceed to decide this question of extended period of limitation. It is not in dispute that the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit in contravention of Rule 9(1) of CCR 2004 as it stood during the relevant period. They did not submit invoices for details of CENVAT Credit availed in their E.R 1 returns. The show cause notice alleges that this amounts to suppression of facts. It is a well settled principle that to allege suppression, it must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
