9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y had defaulted in payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 46,20,549/- during the period March, 2005 to June, 2006. As per the Central Excise Rules prevalent at that time, an order dated 01.06.2005 was issued by the then jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner requiring the party to pay the Central Excise duty on consignment basis trough PLA at the time of clearance of goods for two months or till the payment of defaulted amount whichever is later. As per Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as was in force at that time, the party was restricted for utilization of Cenvat credit till the default amount is paid or 2 months from the date of order, whichever is later. The party could not pay the Central Excise duties within the stipula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.09.2008 received in the division office on 30.09.08 re-submitted claim along with the RG-23A Part II account, mentioning that the claim has been filed under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as amended and made applicable to units which are closed/that cannot use Cenvat credit. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No.124/ANS/PCK/2009, dated 06.05.2009 allowed the appeal of the party. Aggrieved from the same, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 6. Heard both parties at length and examined the records. 7. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded in para 5 of the said order that the facts are not in disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mportant part of the surrender of central excise registration is the declaration by the registrant and that there is no govt. due pending against the registrant and that there is no demand pending against them under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Whereas in the instant case Govt. due to the tune of Rs. 46,20,549/- (collected from the customers but not deposited with the Govt.) were pending recovery against the party. This fact was not taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). 9. From the above, it is clear that the relevant facts in this case are clearly disputed and need proper verification. Accordingly, the matter needs to be re-examined afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals) in order to verify and establish the facts. If need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
