2011 (5) TMI 772

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. and M/s. JCT Electronics Ltd. 2. The entire controversy involved in the matter is of the inputs used by the present respondent in respect of the goods manufactured by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 3. The contention of Revenue was that the respondent herein had returned some goods which were purported to be defective. But in the guise of it, M/s. Samtel Colour Ltd. and M/s. JCT Electronics Ltd. had, in fact, given them new colour tubes instead of repaired colour tubes. 4. In the order-in-original in so far as MODVAT Credit recovery was ordered in respect of the sum of Rs. 77,18,690.67 and in respect of CPTs sent for repair but not received back within the prescribed time limit, the MODVAT Credit of Rs. 48,308/- was soug .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. The Commissioner aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal preferred an appeal against M/s. Samtel Colour Ltd. being Central Excise Appeal Defective No. 153 of 2004, the substantial questions of law which were sought to be raised in the appeal were as under : *       (a) Whether supply of fresh/new CPTs by the respondent to M/s. Samsung in the Garb of repair of defective CPTs and thus facilitating the fraudulent availment of MODVAT Credit (to M/s. Samsung) attracts levy of penalty against the respondents under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? *       (b) Whether the Appellate Tribunal can proceed on surmises and presumption and impose negative burden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was in respect of the inputs not received in times, the amount of Rs. 48,308/- was disallowed and already had been paid by the respondent herein. That is why we find that that ground was not urged before the learned Tribunal either on behalf of the appellant of that matter. 10. The only point which was sought to be urged before us by the learned counsel for the Revenue was in respect of this matter which we find was neither raised in the appeal memo nor in the ground nor the respondents themselves had urged it before the learned Tribunal. 11. Considering the above, we find no merit in the appeal as the appeal does not raise substantial questions of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X