9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Appellant Shri S.M.Vaidya, JDR for Respondent Mr.P.G.Chacko, Mr.Sahab Singh Per: P.G.Chacko This application filed by the applicant seeks waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 82,67,354/- demanded from them under Sec.11A of the Central Excise Act. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we have found a fit case for remand to the lower appellate authority. During the period of dispute, the appellant had cleared their final product ( Terry Towel) by availing full exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE . The condition attached to the said Notification was that any CENVAT credit should not be availed on inputs/capital goods. The appellant s inputs were yarn, dyes, packing materials and furnace oil. After v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final product. It is submitted that these facts are discernible from the Supdt s report. Yet another submission made by the ld.counsel is that the plea of limitation raised by the party was not considered by the ld.Commissioner(Appeals). The ld.counsel has also claimed that the appellant s case is fully supported by the Hon ble High Court s judgment in the case of Commissioner or Central Excise vs Ashima Dyecot Ltd [2008(232) E.L.T. 580 (Guj)]. It is also pointed out that the SLP filed by the department against the High Court s judgment was dismissed by the apex court as reported in 2009(240) ELT A 41 (S.C.). The ld.counsel has also cited other case law in support of the appellant s case. 3. After giving careful consideration to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clearly declared that the assessee was claiming the benefit of Notification 30/04-CE. The relevant extracts from RG 23 A Part II accounts were also filed along with the returns. Thus, the question whether the appellant did or did not avail CENVAT credit on their inputs which were used in the manufacture of Terry Towels cleared without payment of duty was clearly answerable from the records placed by them before the department from time to time. In other words, no material fact was suppressed before the department, let alone with intent to evade payment of duty. In this scenario, according to the ld.counsel, the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case. We find that this case of the appellant was not examined by the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
