TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case records I do not find any suppression on the part of the appellants. As per records, audit of their records has been regularly done by the Central Excise Department during the years in question and during the course of the audit all the transactions including the transactions in question i.e. alleged trading transactions were also got regularly audited as mostly those transactions were done under the cover of proper Central Excise Invoices and it was also reflected in the books of accounts/RG-1/ER-1 returns of the appellant. As per the appellant despite disclosing everything, no objection was raised by any of the Central Excise Department official who conducted the audit during all those years. It cannot be said that the transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arket on payment of VAT and were subsequently sold again on payment of VAT without being subjected to any manufacturing process. The transaction had also been recorded in sale tax records as trading sales, which is an exempted service. They were liable to reverse 6%/7% on the trading value and they had failed to do so. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 10.04.2017 was issued demanding ₹ 1,52,844/- from the Appellant for the period April, 2012 to October, 2015 under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w explanation III to Rule 6(3D) ibid and Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith interest and equal penalty. The extended period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act was invoked on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r manufacturing business and hence the same cannot be treated as Trading Activity. He also submits that the provisions of Rule 6 ibid are not applicable on the transactions in question as the definition of service u/s. 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994 specifically excludes the sale of goods transactions. He also submits that the issue is only of interpretation and therefore no suppression can be alleged and resultantly no extended period can be invoked. In support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon various case laws. Per contra learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and submits that since the Appellants are paying VAT also, therefore it is a clear cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he absence of detection by the officers of the department, they would have gone unnoticed. So far as suppression is concerned after going through the case records I do not find any suppression on the part of the appellants. As per records, audit of their records has been regularly done by the Central Excise Department during the years in question and during the course of the audit all the transactions including the transactions in question i.e. alleged trading transactions were also got regularly audited as mostly those transactions were done under the cover of proper Central Excise Invoices and it was also reflected in the books of accounts/RG-1/ER-1 returns of the appellant. As per the appellant despite disclosing everything, no objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
