9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation is bearing No.67/95, dated 16.3.1995. The Tribunal discarded the above said legal plea stating that none of these contentions has been substantiated by them. We find no reason is given by the Tribunal on the legal plea raised by the appellant. The Tribunal has merely stated that there is no merit in the assessee's case. We find that the order of the Tribunal is bereft of reasons and there is no analysis of the question of law raised before them. In our considered opinion, on this score also the order of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - C. M. A. No. 180 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K. Jayachandran Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upholding the imposition of penalty (however reduced) in absence of mentioning of particular clause of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules? (i) Whether the Tribunal can reject the appeal without considering each submission raised in the grounds of appeal? 2.1. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pressure cookers and vacuum flasks. They also manufacture stainless steel vessels and restaurant items. According to the appellants, the goods are exempted from central excise duty. 2.2. There was a surprise inspection of the appellant's unit by the officers of the Central Excise Department on 22.3.1996 and 10.4.1996. On verification of records maintained by the assessee, it was found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MODVAT credit for the quantity of 0.40 mm, 0.50 mm and 0.63 mm S.S.Coils used in manufacture of exempted products as shown in Annexure-III should not denied under sub-rule (2) of Rule 57I of Central Excise Rules, 1944; (5) Why an amount of ₹ 51,09,014/- representing the Central Excise Duty involved in Dies manufactured and captively consumed within their factory should not be demanded under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (6) Why a penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the above mentioned contraventions; (7) Why a penalty equal to the proposed total duty/MODVAT credit demand should not be imposed in terms of Section 11AC/Rule 57I(4) of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure III A sum of ₹ 3,59,668/- being duty credit taken on 20428.378 Kgs. of coils of the sizes 0.5 mm, 0.4 mm and 0.63 mm used in dutiable products need not be reversed, but a sum of ₹ 8,01,644/- is to be reversed. Annexure IV A sum of ₹ 11,17,500 is demandable on account of usage of dies during the period 1/3/1994 to 16/3/1995 when there was no exemption on such capital goods. Insofar as the point of extended period of limitation is concerned, the Commissioner held that only after a detailed enquiry by the department, the facts leading to reversal of credit were unearthed and the liability to pay duty on dyes became evident and, therefore, there was suppression of facts. On the above premise, the Commissioner passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal Authority. This is also admitted by the assessee. 5. The issues that now remain for consideration are: (i)whether the reversal of credit to the extent of ₹ 8,01,644/- in respect of 0.40 mm, 0.50 mm and 0.63 mm coils relatable to Annexure-III is correct?; and (ii)whether the demand of duty of ₹ 11,17,500/- relatable to Annexure-IV with regard to the claim that there was no exemption in respect of tools and dyes which were manufactured and consumed in the factory during the period from 1.3.1994 to 15.3.1995 is correct? 6.1. On the issue relating to Annexure-III, a specific plea has been taken by the assessee in paragraph (3) of the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, which reads as under: 3. The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then) does not contain anything relating to export. 6.4. We find that even though a specific plea has been raised by the appellant in this regard, in paragraph (3) of the grounds of appeal (extracted above), the Tribunal has simply brushed aside the said plea saying that the assessee's appeal does not contain any challenge on this ground. Therefore, there is a clear non application of mind by the Tribunal in this regard. 7.1. As far as the duty demand in respect of exemption claimed for tools and dyes is concerned, the assessee raised a plea in paragraph (5) of the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal as follows: 5. The appellants submit that exemption notification No.67/95, dated 16.3.1997 is clarificatory in nature and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
