9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Revenue in terms of different orders as appearing in column 4 of the Table -A. Following such review orders, Revenue filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). 2. While hearing this batch of appeals, Tribunal by a common Stay Order No.375 - 384/2009 dated 14.05.2009 as appearing in column 6 of Table A stayed operation of the impugned order. TABLE-A Period O/O No. & Date Sanctioning refund Refund given to TNEB (Rs.) Commissioner Review Order No & Date O/A No. & Date Commissioner (Appeals) upholding Dept' appeal CESTAT Stay No./Appeal No. CESTAT Stay Order No. & Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11.10.1993 to 31.3.1994 24/08-RF dt.28.3.08 14, 48, 150/- C.No.IV/02/223/08-Review dt.25.4.08 04/2009-CE(SLM) dt.13.1.2009 E/S/130/09 in E/197/09 375/09 dt.14.5.09 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995 25/08-RF dt.8.5.08 26, 04, 659/- C.No.IV/02/224/08-Review dt.8.5.08 05/2009-CE(SLM) dt.13.1.2009 E/S/131/09 in E/198/09 376/09 dt.14.5.09 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1996 39/08-RF dt.22.4.08 24, 91, 764/- C.No.IV/02/278/08-Review dt.28.5.08 06/2009-CE(SLM) dt.13.1.2009 E/S/132/09 in E/199/09 377/09 dt.14.5.09 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997 40/08-RF dt.22.4.08 45, 73, 317/- C.No.IV/02/278/08-Revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1996 72/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 24, 91, 764/- 06/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 65/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997 73/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 45, 73, 317/- 07/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 66/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 74/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 45, 82, 083/- 08/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 67/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999** ** ** 1.4.1999 to 30.9.1999 75/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 28, 62, 905/- 10/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 68/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.10.1999 to 31.3.2000** ** ** 1.4.2000 to 30.9.2000 76/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 47, 89, 780/- 09/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 69/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.10.2000 to 31.1.2001 77/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 21, 85, 655/- 11/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 70/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 TOTAL (A) 2, 55, 38, 313/- ADDITIONAL DEMAND RAISED Period Demand (Rs.) Impugned O/O No. &Date Confirmed by Impugned O/A No. & Date 1 2 3 4 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 4, 46, 549/- 02/2010 dt.21.1.10 71/2014-CE dt. 7.2.2014 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997 1, 82, 504/- 05/2010 dt.21.1.10 72/2014-CE dt. 7.2.2014 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999 2, 63, 232/- 03/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Such appeals were registered as Appeal Nos. 4 to 13/2009-CE (SLM) in the file of the said Authority. One such appeal was disposed by that authority by his Order No.04/09-CE [SLM] on 13.01.2009 reversing the decision of grant of refund to the appellant and such decision was followed in disposing rest of the appeals. 5.3 Being aggrieved by all the orders dated 13.1.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who reversed refunds sanctioned by Adjudicating Authority, appellants came before Tribunal in the batch or appeals registered as E/ 197/2009 to E/206/2009 (at Sl. No. 15 to 24 of the cause list today). Appreciating the ratio laid down in the own cases of appellant as hereinbefore stated, Tribunal, stayed operation of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 14.05.2009. 6. We were given to understand that not only the appellant TNEB succeeded before Tribunal as early as in 1993 in terms of its order dated 07.09.1993, 05.01.2001 and the decision reported in reported decision 2000 (124) ELT 638, as well as 2001 (131) E.L.T. 510 [Order dated 05.01.2001 in the case of Commissioner Vs Superintendent Engineer, TNEB], it also succeed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved is whether the activity of the nature carried out by the appellant as stated hereinbefore amounts to manufacture and the goods shall come under the Tariff Entry No. 7308 2011. Added to this, there is another issue involved relating to admissibility of CENVAT credit. 9. The appeal No. E/1229/2004 raises the issue whether scrap sold by appellant is liable to duty? 10. Revenue submits today that Supreme Court dismissed appeal of Revenue on the ground that there was a decision of the apex court against Revenue in Dodsal Manufacturing (P) Ltd. - 2001 (127) ELT 324 (SC). But Apex Court in another case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Man Structurals Ltd. - 2001 (130) ELT 401 (SC) , recorded that decision in Dodsal Manufacturing requires reconsideration by a larger bench. It may be stated that when the Order dated 29.08.2006 in Dodsal's case 2001 (127) ELT 324 (SC) was within the knowledge of the department while order of dismissal of their appeals was passed by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4999-5000/2001 on 29.8.2006, Revenue did not make any mention before the Hon'ble court that its appeals may also be tagged with the matter in Collector of Central Excise, Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
