9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri V.S. Manoj for K. Vaitheeswaran, for the Petitioner. Mrs. R. Hemalatha, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.]. - The Appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Miscellaneous Order No. 40476 of 2016 dated 21-10-2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are as follows :- The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of additives for lubricating oil classifiable under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant discharged duties of excise at the time of clearance of final products from their factory. The appellant availed CENVAT credit in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Final Order Nos. 41689 and 41690 of 2015, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals on 29-10-2015 on a wrong premise that the appellant had sought for parallel remedy, on the very same issued before the High Court and before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant filed Rectification Petition seeking rectification of the error. The Appellate Tribunal vide Misc. Order No. 40476 of 2016 dated 21-10-2016, dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant is before this Court with the present Appeal. 5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record. 6. Perusal of material on records would show that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Perusal of materials on record would further show that with regard to show cause notice dated 6-11-2007, Order-in-Original No. 7/2011 came to be passed on 28-3-2011 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming the demand of ₹ 4,14,259/- and with regard to another show cause notice dated 4-6-2010, Order-in-Original No. 6/2011 came to be passed on the same day ie., on 28-3-2011 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming the demand of ₹ 1,02,423/-, being the CENVAT Credit which has been taken by the appellant herein and an order of recovery of same under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with appropriate interest under Rule 14 of Cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clude as to the correctness or otherwise of the orders of the authorities below. 9. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise also given a finding that the appellant has not stated before CESTAT or before him, which provisions of the Acts are applicable to their case and the details furnished by the assessee were also not in conformity with the directions of the Tribunal, with reference to the materials received and materials stored. 10. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise also held that the shortages in input stock occurring due to handling and transportation within the manufacturing facility, due to natural causes like evaporation, dryage, differences in calibration of weighbridges, short accountal due to clerical error, wasta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Appellate Tribunal. In the said Miscellaneous Petition, it was stated by the Learned Counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal that there had been misconception of fact of seeking parallel remedy on the same issue before the High Court, but, it was not on the same issue for the current year, but they have filed appeals against the orders passed on the same issue, for the previous period, and the result of the appeal disposed by the order dated 29-10-2015 may be same, but not for seeking parallel remedy. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that without appreciating the contentions made by the appellants before the Tribunal in challenging the previous order dated 29-10-2015, the Tribunal has passed an order in the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the order shall read as :- Following judicial discipline, present appeals also stand dismissed for the reasons stated in the Final Order No. 40149 to 40152 of 2015 dated 13-2-2015. 5. The above two amendments to the order dated 29-10-2015 satisfies the requirement of the present miscellaneous application. Accordingly, MA is allowed with the direction that the order shall read as under :- Appellant explains that against the appellate order for the previous period, appellant is before Hon ble High Court of Madras in CMA. Following judicial discipline, present appeals also stand dismissed for the reasons stated in the Final Order No. 40149 to 40152 of 2015 dated 13-2-2015. 14. From the reading of the facts, this Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
