9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horized by the competent officer 2. Demand was time barred and other issues were related to facts. Regarding 1st issue court said that it is not case of the assessee, regarding 2nd issue court said Plea of limitation is not shown to have been raised before the Tribunal and there is no substantial question of law in other issues raised. - 121 of 2010 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 30-8-2010 - CORAM: HON'BL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmit an error of law in not considering that show cause was issued on 5.8.2004 to recover the duty for the period July 2000 to October 2000 under erstwhile Central excise Rules, 1944 which were not on the statute at the time of issuance of the Show Cause Notice and the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 not saved by section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? c) Whether the learned CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is engaged in manufacture of brass/copper/zinc sheets and circles and avails MODVAT/CENVAT facility under the rules. Investigation was initiated against certain concerns on the allegation that they issued fraudulent invoices. As a result of the report of the said investigation, it was found that credit availed by the appellant was based on bogus invoices. Show Cause Notice dated 5.8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olving MODVAT credit of Rs. 57,659/-. Penalty was reduced to 25% in terms of first proviso to section 11AC of the Act. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the review filed before the Commissioner was not competent as the petition was not signed and authorized by the competent officer. It was further sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of Tribunal. Questions (d) and (e) relate to a question of fact about the invoice being genuine or otherwise and are not substantial questions of law. 7. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. 8. In case of M/s Vijay Metal Works, CEA No.122 of 2010, the matter has been merely remanded and thus, the appellant will have opportunity to put forward its view point on the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
