9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... un Kurian Joseph For the Respondent : Mr. S. Rajasekar JUDGMENT ( Order of the Court was delivered by Dr. Anita Sumanth, J. ) The appellant in the appeal assails the order of the Customs, Excise and the Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 11.11.2009. 2. The admitted substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in the appeal are as follows; 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in applying the provisions of Rule 9(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to a case of inter unit transfer of semi finished goods, where there is no question of clandestine removal to any third party by way of sale? 2. Whether in view of the notification issued under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules with intent to evade payment of duty. The assessee was thus asked to show cause as to why the amount of CENVAT duty not be recovered along with interest and penalty. 5. Notwithstanding the objections tendered, an order-in-original dated 15.3.2007 was passed that confirmed the proposals in the Show Cause Notice. The order was confirmed in first appeal as regards the availment of credit and consequent demand, and reducing the penalty imposed. In second appeal, the CESTAT confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against which, the present appeal is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It would appear that the appellant had approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of proceedings initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 6.12.2006. A Writ Appeal against the aforesaid order by the assessee was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in 254 ELT 392, thus confirming the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Settlement Commission. The order of the CESTAT dated 11.11.2009 relies on the factual finding of the settlement commission relating to suppression. We are of the opinion that as a result of the setting aside of the order of the Settlement Commission by the Single Judge and the confirmation thereof by the Division Bench, the order of the settlement commission and the findings rendered therein, stand obviated. Reliance by the CESTAT on such findings therein are consequently misplaced. 8. An order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have confirmed the position that a claim under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act would not come within the purview of jurisdiction of the settlement commission and as such the assumption of jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission was itself incorrect. Thus, the order of the Settlement Commission and the findings therein are not be a factor to contend with. 10. On the aspect of eligibility to exemption from Duty, notification 20/2009-CE (N.T.) dated 18.8.2009 issued by the Board in terms of section 11C indicates that there was an intention to exempt dough from the payment of duty. The notification refers to the period 28.2.2005 to 27.5.2008 which includes the period under disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
