9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as this scrap was of old and used capital goods in respect of which modvat credit had been taken and hence, at the time of clearance of this scrap, in terms of the provisions of Rule 57S(2)(c), excise duty as specified thereunder was required to be paid. On this basis, a show cause notice was issued for demand of duty to the tune of ₹ 9,37,448/- alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 8.6.2000 by which the demand as made in the show cause notice was confirmed along with interest and besides this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On appeal against this o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e plea taken by the appellant is only an after-thought and is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Shri A.K. Jain submitted that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that they had not availed modvat credit in respect of the goods which ultimately resulted in scrap cleared by them. 5.We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned order including the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has dealt with the plea of the appellant in following manner:- I have carefully gone through the Order-in-Original, grounds of appeal and written statement submitted at the time of personal hearing and case laws cited by the Appellants. The Appellants have submitted that the Scra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 9,37,448/- . Shri A.K. Jain, Joint CDR has submitted that since neither the original adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority has gone into the core issue whether or not the appellant had taken modvat credit on the capital goods which were subsequently sold as scrap, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back for fresh adjudication. Ordinarily, we would have accepted this contention. However, in the instant case, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant in the year 1999 and it related to the period from 1994 onwards. Almost 13 years have gone by the date of show cause notice, therefore, likelihood of the evidence being available is not there. 7.In view of the discussion above, we find it difficult to sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
