9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacture of excisable goods viz. Clinker and Cement falling under Chapter Heading No. 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing the benefits of the Cenvat credit scheme. During the course scrutiny of ER-1 return filed by the appellant for the period January 2002 to July 2004, it was observed that appellant have wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods which was used in their power plant which is situated at distance of 14Kms. away from the factory. It was also observed by the revenue that appellant are supplying electricity generated from this power plant to their grinding unit at village Akri, jetty and residential colony. A statement of Shri K.M. Rao, General Manager (Excise & Customs) of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. - 2022(11)TMI 1091 -Orissa High Court. Biral Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE- 2005(186)ELT 266 (SC) CCE Vs. Manikgarh Cement Ltd. -2005(190)ELT 7 (SC) 2.2 On limitation he submits that Cenvat credit for the period January 2002 to July 2004 being denied by show cause notice dated 12.12.2006. Hence, the entire period is beyond the normal period of limitation. However, the show cause notice has been issued without invoking the proviso Section 11A (1) or without any allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant. The show cause notice does not allege any fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant. Hence, the extended period of limitation is not applicable. He placed reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarations and filed returns regularly. Suppression cannot be alleged in such a case. He placed reliance on following judgments:- Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd. vs. CCE - 2017(349) ELT 694 (Guj.) CCE, Indore Vs. Zyg Pharma Pvt. Ltd. - 2017(358) ELT 101(M.P.) Apex Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India - 1992 (61) ELT 413 (Guj.) 3. On other hand, Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (AR) on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We prima facie find that in the present matter Ld. adjudicating authority in respect of disputed cenvat credit observed that the present case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
