9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are that the assessee are manufacturers of wood working tools and were also engaged in trading of the goods. They had not maintained separate inventory in respect of common input services that were used for manufacture of dutiable goods and for providing the exempted service i.e. trading. Department alleged that they were liable to pay amount of 6% or 7% on the value of exempted goods as per Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 (in short, CCR) and issued show-cause notice dt. 24/08/2017 demanding Rs. 84,79,638/- for the period August 2014 to February 2017 under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CCR, 2004. The assessee reversed an amount of Rs. 10,34,452/- being the credit attributable to the exempted activity of trading along with interest of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of trading and in the Audit note No.378/2014 has not raised any objection with regard to the same and it was only during the subsequent audit, the audit party raised this objection and based on the said objection, the Department has issued notice alleging suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, which is not sustainable in law. In support of this, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of MTR Foods Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2014(3120 ELT 730 (Tri. Bang.] wherein the Tribunal held that when Department accepted the correctness of the availment of CENVAT credit and not found any wrong in the first audit and raised the objection on the same during the subsequent audit and issued a show-cause notice invoking longer peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June 2017 and also intimated the same to the Department vide their letter dt. 25/09/2017. These facts have not been appreciated by the Commissioner(Appeals) while imposing equal penalty under Section 78 which is not sustainable in law. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Continental Foundation jt. Venture Vs. CCE [2007(216) ELT 177 (SC)] wherein it is held that mere omission to give correct information cannot be construed as suppression so as to invoke the longer period of limitation under Section 11A. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record and the decisions relied upon by the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
