9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 13,68,87,621/- under the proviso to Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 (erstwhile Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944), imposing penalty of Rs. 13,68,87,621/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and confirming recovery of interest under Section 11AB. 3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd., Plot No. E-2, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) are engaged in the manufacture of Optical Fibre falling under Chapter 90 and Optical Fibre Cable falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Apart from the excise registration, they were also registered under Customs (Import o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 Plant) on the ground that out of the surreptitiously removed raw materials from E-2 to E-3 plant, E-3 plant have manufactured and cleared optical fibre in Domestic Tariff Area without permission from the SEEPZ. E-3 plant have cleared these goods i.e., optical fibre on the invoices of the applicant (E-2 plant) showing in records as if the applicant have produced them. The said matter was decided by the Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 19-20/EX-CUS/2003, dated 11-7-2003 wherein it was established that some of the production of the applicant was actually done in their adjacent 100% EOU (E-3 plant) and it was shown as if the same were manufactured in the applicant s factory (E-2 plant) and accordingly the records were fabricated. (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit to the applicant i.e., E-2 plant, who have surreptitiously cleared inputs on which Cenvat/Modvat credit has been availed to its 100% EOU (E-3 Plant). The period involved is from 1-4-2001 to 31-8-2002. After following the necessary adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 31-12-2006 as referred to in para 2 above. 7. It is the contention of the applicant that this case is linked and inter connected to the case, which is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court and since the stay has been granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in that case, and the matter is subjudice before the Hon ble Supreme Court, recoveries of the duty and penalty, in all fairness, should not be effected in the instant case, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
