9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee (appellant) despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. We therefore take up this old appeal for final disposal. 2. Examined the records and heard Superintendent (AR). In adjudication of a show-cause notice issued to the assessee, the original authority had confirmed demand of duty of Rs.2,72,886/- against them on the ground of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GFT. The excisable goods manufactured from these inputs by the appellant were supplied to PGCIL without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 during the period 31.7.2001 to 4.3.2002. These products were intended to be used in the execution of PGCI's project financed by World Bank. However, as World Bank loan did not materialize, a major condition attached to Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notice to them, which was contested. The subsequent events viz. passing of the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal have already been stated in the previous para. It appears from the records that the appellant reversed CENVAT credit in question around the time of passing of the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). In other words, the lower authorities did not have occasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d point for the appellant against enhancement of penalty. It is borne on record that the CENVAT credit of CVD taken by the appellant was reversed by them soon after the changed circumstances were noted by them. The enhancement of penalty by the lower appellate authority is, therefore, not justifiable. As we have already noted, the appellant has no serious grievance against the demand of duty/inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
