9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by giving conclusive finding over the issues involved in the matter? (2) Whether, the learned Tribunal is justified in giving finding that reasonable steps as enumerated under Rule 7(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not complied with the appellant, particularly when the names and addresses of the supplied traders/merchants are properly identified and such goods are procured under proper endorsement on the invoices? (3) Whether learned Tribunal is justified in differentiating the word supplier with merchant/traders in view of clear provision contained in Rule 7(1)(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002? (4) Whether the proceedings initiated against the appellant for denial of Cenvat credit were permissible in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of M/s. Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 587 by holding that an extended period of limitation shall be applied in the present case, ignoring the latest judgment produced during the hearing before the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Ajay Kumar Co. reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 387 (S.C.) of Hon ble Supreme Court? (8) Whether learned Tribunal is justified in interpreting Rule 7(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 particularly the appellant have taken all reasonable steps within the meaning of Explanation to Rule 7(2)? 2. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav P. Shah for the appellant and with his assistance examined the order of all the authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discerned, there was averredly no fault on the part of the appellant for taking credit on endorsed invoices. The adjudicating authority passed an order on 7-3-2008 confirming the demand imposing penalty and also the amount of interest. 3.4 This was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals) and was decided on 3-3-2010 on the line of OIO. 4. Dissatisfied with such order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. Others also raised similar issue and by a common order dated 24-1-2011, all matters have been remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh. Against such order of Tribunal dated 13-10-2011 passed in Excise Appeal No. E/2010, this appeal is preferred. 5. Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, by totally misinterpreting the same. (4) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the word supplier takes within its fold the traders/ merchants who endorsed the invoices, as per the provisions of Rule 7(1)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. (5) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in arriving at conclusion that the question as to whether the original manufacturer is fictitious or not is irrelevant to a case like the present one under Rule 7(1)(e) read with Rule 7(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. (6) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not appreciating that the appellant could not be saddled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation which was not the subject matter in that case. Question No. 8 In the affirmative and against the Revenue. 7. The Division Bench held therein that on the basis of the entire material placed before it, the documents and invoices, in question, issued by the registered licensee were genuine and there were no allegations against the appellant of fraud, and therefore, it held that the Tribunal ought not to have remanded the matter back as the claim was totally barred by limitation. 8. It further, however, held that the show cause notice was not based on Alert Circular and while setting aside the order of the Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts arising therein, the Bench clarified that in those cases where the lar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
