2011 (6) TMI 607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of demand and imposition of penalty on NTPPL which has not been challenged, which goes to show that duty was not discharged on the goods removed by M/s NTPPL. Therefore, the duty paid character of the goods on which the respondents have taken CENVAT credit is not free from doubt. Similarly the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is self contradictory. appeal is allowed by way of remand
SHRI S.K. GAULE, J. Appearance: Shri Sanjay Kalra JDR for Appellant Shri A.V. Naik Advocate for Respondent Per: S.K. Gaule Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/121/2008 dated 27.6.2008 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order 3. Briefly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and cleared processed and unprocessed material without making the entry in RG-1 register. They could not discharge the duty liability for the month of November, 2003 and they did not file ER-1 return for the said period, so that the department could not know about the non-payment of duty on such period of assessment. The contention is that concerned Central Excise authority has decided the case against NTPPL vide Order-in-Original No. 42/86-07 dated 31.5.2007 and demand has been confirmed alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount has been imposed against NTPPL, the same has not been challenged. Therefore, the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no revenue loss in the case, is not correct. Learned JDR also sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es issued by NTTPL, which is in contradiction with his finding in dropping the case against the respondent.The proceedings initiated against NTPPL resulted in the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty on NTPPL which has not been challenged, which goes to show that duty was not discharged on the goods removed by M/s NTPPL. Therefore, the duty paid character of the goods on which the respondents have taken CENVAT credit is not free from doubt. Similarly the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is self contradictory. Therefore, the issue requires reconsideration in view of the above findings. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh by taking into consideration the case against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X