Cce Vs. Modern Paper Converters

1. heard both sides. in the instant appeal the contention of the revenue is that there is suppression of fact on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the fact of raising of debit notes. the original adjudication authority basing on this factual situation held that the demand is within the extended period of time of the section 11a of the central excise act. however, the finding of the ld.commissioner (appeals) is contrary to the same and held that the demand is hit by time bar. ld. commissioner (appeals) did not discuss much about the merits of the case otherwise. the issue relates to denial of the credit availed on the inputs on the ground that subsequently debit notes were raised on the supplier of the inputs lowering the price. the contention of the assessee is that whatever the duty has been paid by the supplier, credit is taken equivalent to that extent and when where was no refund claim by the supplier nor there was any reassessment at the supplier's end, the availment of credit is proper and legal since there is no loss to the revenue. further their contention is that no provision under the central excise act requires that debit notes to be filed before the department which has no relevance in the production of goods. whereas, the ld. jdr contends that every related information is to be disclosed to the department. according to him the extended period has been rightly invoked in the instant appeal since there was suppression of fact.2. ld counsel for the respondent relied upon the following case laws wherein cenvat credit was allowed in support of their claim on meritshero cycles ltd. and anr. v. cce, chandigarh 2003 (54) rlt 764 (cegat-del.) b) m.k. electronic components ltd. v. collector of c. ex. collector of central excise, mumbai i v. noel pharmaceuticals d) voltas ltd. - allwyn ltd v. commissioner of central excise, hyderabad commissioner of central excise, chandigarh v. ranbaxy labs ltd. 2006 (203) elt 231 (p&h) ld. commissioner (appeals).....