2015 (1) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amount realized. Same way in March, 2002 Superintendent in-charge of the appellant advised them not to submit invoices relating to the sale of used dryer screen felts. The above facts emerging from the records would show that even the departmental officers felt that there was no duty liability on the used dryer screen felts cleared by the appellant and therefore the steps as mentioned above were taken. That being the position, we find it extremely difficult to agree with the observations made by the lower authorities that appellants have deliberately and intentionally evaded payment of duty, suppressed facts and sold them without intimating to the department. Therefore in our opinion extended period could not have been invoked in this case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... should have been reversed culminating in the demand for duty of ₹ 1,95,351/-. Even though detailed submissions were made on merits and the amount is payable on what basis etc., we consider that the issue can be decided on the ground of limitation itself and therefore we are not going into detailed discussion, relevant statutory provisions and the interpretation thereof for the liability of the appellant. In this case for the period from 1995-2000, a show cause notice had been issued to the appellant to demand duty on various scrap items sold by them and at that time the used dryer screen felt even though the same was being sold was completely omitted. Thereafter from 2000 onwards according to the records produced before us, the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en remove it without reversal of any Cenvat credit taken is not consistent with the overall scheme of Cenvat credit and can lead to abuse of the scheme. Considering this aspect and the legislative history and the Circular of C.B.E C., we are of the view that we should respectfully follow the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. Rogini Mills Ltd. (supra) and the reference made to this Larger Bench is answered accordingly . - 3. From the discussion above, we find that appellant would be liable to pay duty in terms of para 8 of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. (supra) For better appreciation we reproduce the same. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X