9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate for the respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PII/BKS/275/2005 dated 24.06.2005. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the allegation that the respondent are not entitled to the cenvat credit as the same has been taken on coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le for CVD credit as the said CVD was paid after the issuance of show-cause notice which invoked the extended period and alleged suppression and mis-statement of facts. Ld. adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised. First appellate authority held that the impugned order was incorrect as the amount which has been settled by the respondent before the Settlement Commission and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is the effect of order of Settlement Commission. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Larger Bench Tribunal in Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. 2008 (232) ELT 622 for the same proposition. 5. Ld. counsel would submit that the Larger Bench decision relied upon by the departmental authorities is in fact supporting his case. He would submit that reliance is placed on the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement between the department and the assessee and it cannot be reopened. 8. We find strong force in the contention of the counsel that denying cenvat credit which is availed of the CVD paid in pursuance of the order issued by the Settlement Commission would be in fact reopening the entire issue which is already settled. Be that as it may, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
