9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. D. Dhanuka And Sunil K. Kotwal, JJ. Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr. D.S. Ladda, Advocate for the respondents JUDGMENT ( Per R. D. Dhanuka, J. ) This appeal filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the order dated 24th October 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Western Region Bench) at Mumbai, holding that the benefit of deemed credit facility was not admissible to the appellant and setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the appeal of the Revenue, following the Larger Bench Decision of the Tribunal in case of Digambar Foundary Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, {2000(118) E.L.T. 85 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise and Customs filed an appeal on 2nd June 1997 before the said Tribunal. It is the case of appellant that the said Tribunal passed an exparte order against the appellant and confirmed the disallowance of Modvat Credit permissible to the appellant to the tune of ₹ 6,09,761/and imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000/. The appellant herein filed an application on 27th April 2004 for recalling the said exparte order passed by the said Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the said application for recall of the said order dated 24th October 2003 by passing order on 28th July 2004. The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition bearing no. 2403 of 2004 in this Court. 6. By an order dated 2nd March 2005 this Court gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by this Court in the said First Appeal No. 95/2005, this Court has allowed the said First Appeal after adverting to the four judgments of High courts in cases of: (I) Vinubhai Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise { 2015 (330) E.L.T. 858 (Guj.) (Paragraph 22), (II) Accurex Steel Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner of Ex. Panchkula {2016 (339) E.L.T. 5 ( P H) (Paragraph 13) (III) Ganesh Steels Versus Cestat, Chennai { 2013 (294) E.L.T. 529 (Mad.) (Paragraphs 13 to 16) (IV) Sood Steel Industrial (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise { 2009 (241) E.L.T. 186 (H.P.) (Paragraphs 13 and 14) 10. Learned Counsel for the parties state that the facts of this case are also identical to facts in First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
