9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT records that the Appellant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 2 Crores out of the Cenvat credit of Rs. 3.93 Crores which is alleged to have been wrongfully availed of. By the impugned order the Appellant has been directed to deposit the balance. 2. The Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : 1. Whether having regard to the facts as found prima facie in the order of the CESTAT, there was any justification to require the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.93 Crores on the application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The Appellant has a unit at Jammu and at Taloja. The unit at Jammu falls in an area which is gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Taloja unit paid an amount of Rs. 2 Crores. The Tribunal, as regards the Jammu unit relied upon an order of adjudication passed on 31 March 2008 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu who found that during the period April 2005 to December 2006 (which also covers the period of dispute in the present Case), the Jammu unit manufactured DFMO out of Crude Menthol Oil and had correctly paid duty and taken a refund under the exemption notification. The order of adjudication of the Commissioner of Central Excise at Jammu was according to the Tribunal accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal therefore held that the Revenue is estopped from alleging, that during period in dispute, the Jammu unit cleared Crude Menthol Oil without subjecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the course of the investigation in respect of its Taloja unit; (iii) There was in the circumstances no justification to direct the Appellant to pay back even the balance of Rs. 1.93 Crores. On merits, it was urged that the Tribunal has found a prima facie case in favour of the Jammu unit. In the circumstances, the demand as against the Taloja unit was in the nature of a protective demand, hence a waiver should have been granted for the balance. 8. On the other hand counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has substantially relied on the impugned order of the Tribunal and we have, with the assistance of the counsel, perused the order and the record. 9. As we have noted earlier the Tribunal has found a prima facie case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
