TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 dated 12.9.2007 .,which: pertains to demand of fraudulently availed credit from November 2005 to 31.3.2006. The show cause notice C.No.W-CE(9)CP/Mentha Enquiry/08/0&/Pt.99Af1f.19 dated 15.1.2010 pertains to period April 2006'to March 2009. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeals of the applicant by holding the said order-in-original dated 31.3.2011, SCN dated 15.1.2010 has been adjudicated and the appeal filed by the applicant against order-in-original dated 31.3.2011 has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, the order-in-original of Additional Commissioner confirming the demand of fraudulent availment of cenvat credit has been upheld. Now, since there has been substantial change in facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stly from the unit situated in J K, who were availing area based exemption under Notification 56/2002 57/2002-CE both dated 14.11.2002. The applicant was availing the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs shown to have been procured from the J K region under the provision of Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2.1 The adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claims vide. impugned orders-in-original on the ground that the unit was availing cenvat credit on the basis of bogus invoices issued by the J K (based units and have utilized the same towards payment of duty for final products under the rebate claim. 3. Being aggrieved the applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) against above said impugned orders-in-ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise ). The aforesaid-notice also proposes recovery of ₹ 23,42331/- against alleged erroneous rebate sanctioned to the Applicant vide the original sanction orders under reference and appeal. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that sanction of rebate claim was pre-mature. 4.2 The Applicant further submits that in the instant case goods were cleared for export under claim of rebate after payment of duty from CENVAT credit account in accordance to Rule 8 of the Excise Rules. Rule 8 of the Excise Rules, prescribes the manner for payment of duty. Sub-rule (1) provides that duty on goods removed during a month is to be paid by 5th or 6th date of following month. Sub rule (2) provides that duty of excise shall be deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s revision matters, and Second appeal regarding admissibility of CENVAT credit on inputs, capita goods and input services and recovery thereof are to be heard. by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case-of further appeals. 4.5 The Applicant submits that in case the contention of department to the extent that duty paid from alleged irregular CENVAT credit account is not a duty paid under Rule 8 of We Excise Rules, the matter; involving rebate claims of such duties would also remain premature for decision by the Government of India in revisionary application till the issue of admissibility of CENVAT credit is finally decided by the CESTAT or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )CP/Mentha Enquiry/08/08/Pt.9A/1119 dated 15.1.2010 pertains to order-in-original No.29/Addl. Commr/M-II/2011 dated 31.3.20111 and that actually vide the said order-in-original dated 31.3.2011 show cause notice No. C.No.IV-CE(9)CP/Ansar/M-II/09/06/Pt.1 dated 12.9.2007 was adjudicated. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records/available in case files, oral writtten submissions and perused the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government observes that the original authority rejected rebate claims. The applicant preferred appeals before Commissioner (A) against impugned orders-in-original. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the cases in favour of applicant vide order-in-appeal No.366-372-CE/MRT-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 mentions show cause, notice bearing C.NO.N-CE(9)CP, Ansar/M-IF/09/06 dated 12.9.2007 .,which: pertains to demand of fraudulently availed credit from November 2005 to 31.3.2006. The show cause notice C.No.W-CE(9)CP/Mentha Enquiry/08/0 /Pt.99Af1f.19 dated 15.1.2010 pertains to period April 2006'to March 2009. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeals of the applicant by holding the said order-in-original dated 31.3.2011, SCN dated 15.1.2010 has been adjudicated and the appeal filed by the applicant against order-in-original dated 31.3.2011 has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, the order-in-original of Additional Commissioner confirming the demand of fraudulent availment of cenvat credit has been upheld. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|