9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case there is no dispute that the amount paid by the appellant on the clearances on laminated polyster Films is much more than the cenvat credit availed. In view of this and also following the judgements of the Tribunal mentioned above, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable and as such the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour. The requirement of pre-deposit of the cenvat credit demand, interest thereon and penalty is therefore waived of for hearing of the appeal and its recovery is stayed. - Stay granted. - Excise Miscellaneous No. E/55910/2014, Excise Stay No. E/59774/2013-EX(DB), Excise Appeal No. E/59092/2013-EX(DB) - - - Dated:- 29-12-2014 - Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) And S. K. Mohanty, Member (J),JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at either the matter did not reach or there was no bench, that the notice for hearing of this matter on 13.10.2014 was not received by the appellant and for this reason only they could not appear, that in this regard an affidavit has been filed that in any case in view of Apex Court's judgement, in case of Balaji Steels Rolling Mills reported in 2014 (310) ELT 209 S.C, an appeal is not to be dismissed for non-prosecution, that in view of this the Tribunal's order dated 13.10.2014, dismissing the stay application for non-prosecution may be recalled and the stay application may restore for hearing on merits. 4. Shri Yashpal Sharma, Ld. Jt. CDR stated the he has no objection to restoration of the stay application for hearing on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed by the Commissioner, that the second demand raised by the Show Cause Notice dated 07.12.2006 for the period from November 2005 to January 2006 is for demanding Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 9,79,983/-, while during this period as per the department's own stand the process did not amount to manufacture and no duty was payable, that still the Commissioner by the impugned order going beyond the scope of the Show Cause notice dated 07.12.2006 has confirmed cenvat credit demand of the same amount while the SCN dated 07.12.2006 was for demand of duty, that the impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable that in any case if the process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, their activity would am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
