9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri J. Shankarraman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench 1.1 The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of MS Ingots falling under Chapter 72061090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Pursuant to investigation by the DGCEI authorities on 14.6.2006, a show cause notice F.No.INV/DGCEI/CBERU/8/2008 dated 15.1.2008 was issued by the Additional Director, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai, demanding Central Excise Duty of ₹ 28,18,945/- on the alleged unaccounted manufacture and clearance of MS ingots during the period from May 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw material is right, even the accounted quantity could not have been manufactured by the appellant. Hence, there is no question of unaccounted quantity of 474.895 MT of ingots being manufactured and cleared to M/s Pavai Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd., during the said period as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The said notice also emerges out of the investigation which started on 14.6.2006. 1.3. Against the above said show cause notice the appellant filed an application before the Settlement Commission, Chennai admitting an amount of ₹ 22,04,747 out of the demand of ₹ 1,64,43,413/-. The above admission was on the ground that they do not have the end use certificate to the above extent. The Settlement Commission vide Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel submitted that In view of the above, the present appeals may please be heard after the W.A. is disposed of by the Hon ble High Court. 2. The Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC,also submitted that the matter is pending before the Hon ble High Court. 3. Both sides have not been able to submit when the matter is likely to be disposed by the Hon ble High Court. The appeal is of the year 2010 and it has been pending before the Tribunal. Ahead of the transition of Indirect Tax to GST, this Tribunal has been given a mandate to dispose of all old cases. Viewed in this light, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate and prudent to close the file for the purpose of statistics. We, however make it clear that the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
