9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sharad Chandra Tewari, Advocate for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned advocate Shri Sharad Chandra Tewari appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned AR, Shri Pawan Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the Revenue, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to manufacture. Further, the benefit of the job work was not extended to the appellant on the ground that principal manufacturer was exempted in terms of the area based exemption notification and was not paying any duty of excise. 3. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 28 January, 2016 raising demand of duty of Rs. 12,19,591/- (Rupee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has observed that inasmuch as a period of more than 6(Six) Months have passed from the date of issuance of the invoices the appellant is not entitled to the credit. 5. On the said issue, we find that there was a finding in favour of the assessee by the Original Adjudicating Authority as regards admissibility of cenvat credit which finding was not challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be neutralized against the cenvat credit available to them for which they will produce documentary evidence. 6. We also note that the major part of the demand is barred by limitation. Inasmuch as appellants were paying service tax on the same activity and were filing ST-3 Returns there was due knowledge on the part of the Revenue and no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant so as to invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
