TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) also does not dispute the same; instead of allowing the credit he remands the case following BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GOODS SERVICE TAX [ 2019 (7) TMI 1084 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice was issued on 04.10.2018 covering the period from July 2014 to February 2017; the issue has been in the knowledge of the Department in view of audit and other verifications conducted. There is no scope for invoking extended period. It is further found that it was not discussed or controverted at the Original Authority level. Though the Appellate Authority has discussed the issue on merits and held that credit is admissible. He remanded th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave reversed the same; the appellants have reversed a credit of ₹ 11,39,618 on being pointed out by audit; further an amount of ₹ 17,102/- was wrongly demanded from the appellants whereas though the appellant has initially availed inadmissible credit of ₹ 17,102 (being fifty per cent of the credit available on the capital goods received in the factory), on being pointed out by audit, they reversed not only the fifty per cent but hundred per cent of the credit i.e. ₹ 34, 204; therefore, the demand of credit of ₹ 17,102/- is without any basis. Learned Counsel submits that the Original Authority may be directed to grant the entire disputed refund, after verifying the documents, without going in to merits again. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eversed the same. Reversal would not take away the right of the appellants. Moreover, I find that the appellants have contested the invocation of extended period of limitation. I find that the show cause notice was issued on 04.10.2018 covering the period from July 2014 to February 2017; the issue has been in the knowledge of the Department in view of audit and other verifications conducted. I find that the there is no scope for invoking extended period. I further find that it was not discussed or controverted at the Original Authority level. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find that though the Appellate Authority has discussed the issue on merits and held that credit is admissible. He remanded the matter to the lower authority for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
