TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Limitation - HELD THAT:- There is force in the argument of the appellant that the department was well aware of the fraud /suppression etc. committed by M/s. Datta Enterprises. A show cause notice was issued to them on 25.03.2013. The Appellants were regularly submitting the ST-3 Returns. The unit was also audited in 2013-14 and a show cause notice was issued on 31.12.2015 which is clearly beyond the limitation provided - The department was aware of the fact when M/s. Datta Enterprises have issued a supplementary invoice. Moreover, the Appellants were also audited well before the issuance of show cause notice. Under the circumstances, no suppression etc can be alleged on the part of the Appellants - Therefore the show cause notice and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strength of a supplementary invoice issued by a service provider, where the additional tax becomes payable on account of fraud, cause (bb) of Rule 91 becomes redundant; the department proposes to impose restrictions in a retrospective manner. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also submits that CBEC vide circular 943/04/2011-CE dated 29.04.2011 clarified that the restrictions imposed under Notification No.03/2011-CE(NT) and 13/2011 CE (NT) both dated 31.03.2011 are only prospective; in case service are received before 01.04.2011 credit would be admissible under the earlier provisions. The service provider has paid service Tax under a GAR-7 Challan. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit is as per Rule 3 of CCR, 2004. Anyway, the appellant has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable as they have been quoted out of context. The credit has been availed after the insertion Rule 9(1) (bb) therefore the plea of the Appellants that provisions before the insertion should be applicable. The Appellants has not informed the department that he has taken credit on the supplementary invoice which was issued after an investigation. Only during audit the same was found. Therefore, extended period is invocable. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The appellants submitted that the provisions existing before the insertion of Rule 9(1) (bb) should be applicable. We find that the language of the said Rule is very clear and it clearly states that (bb) a supplementary invoice, bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
