9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Shri R. Santhanam, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Shri Sunil Kumar, AR Per: Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay application, in brief are as under:- 1. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Rotor Starter, Column Component, Bin, etc. chargeable to central excise duty. They availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products. In the months of October December, 2008 and January, 2009, the appellant reversed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.18,86,138/- on the instructions of the jurisdictional Range Officer. Subsequently, in October, 2009, they addressed a letter to the jurisdictional Asstt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, when the appellant realized that the Cenvat credit had been wrongly reversed, they took the credit again after intimating the jurisdictional central excise authorities, that this fact was also declared in the ER-I Return and that in view of this, the department cannot seek its recovery and that the impugned order confirming the Cenvat credit demand along with interest and penalty is not sustainable. He further submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law because it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without giving proper opportunity to the appellant to defend themselves inasmuch as they were not allowed to cross examine the jurisdictional Superintendent, who allegedly instructed the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. Prima facie, we find that the issue as to whether suo motu Cenvat credit earlier reversed can be taken without the sanction and approval of the department, stands decided against the appellant by the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. (supra). As regards the plea of the appellant that he was not afforded opportunity of being heard and opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, we may note that the original adjudicating authority while dealing with this aspect in para-12 of the order-in-original has observed as under:- "12. Further, as requested by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
