9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red for restoring the appeals to the file of the Tribunal. Hence, no separate order is required to be passed on the present Misc. application. Accordingly, the same is disposed of and the appeal is taken up for disposal on merits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of automobile parts, falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant had availed Modvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on HR/CR Coils/Sheets/Plates under erstwhile Rule 57A read with Rule 57AA of Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the disputed period, the assessee-appellant had manufactured 'Front Axle' for the vehicles belonging to M/s Mahindra & Mahindra. The front axle manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whether extended period of limitation can be invoked under the circumstances of the present case. Appeal filed by Revenue was also disposed of by Tribunal vide final order No. A/24/WZB/05/CI dated 31.12.2004 in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a decision in line with the earlier order dated 05.04.2004, referred supra. Pursuant to the remand direction of the Tribunal, learned Commissioner of Central Excise took up denovo adjudication proceedings and passed the present impugned order dated 21.04.2006, in disallowing the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 39,63,167/- along with interest. The impugned order also imposed penalty of Rs. 33,41,118/- on the appellant. Being not satisfied with the impugned order dated 21.04.2006, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant manufactured Front Axle by using 6 mm M.S. sheets, there was no requirement of purchasing any other specification of sheets, other than the said required material. Thus, he submits that denial of Modvat benefit by adjudicating authority is not proper and justified. 5.1 With regard to the limitation aspects, learned Consultant submits that the appellant had disclosed its entire activity of procuring M.S sheets, manufacturing of final product etc. through periodic returns filed before the Central Excise authorities and upon scrutinizing the documents / invoices, the Jurisdictional Range Officer has defaced the disputed invoices. Thus, he contended that since the facts regarding the use of M.S Sheets for manufacture of Front Axle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than 6 mm would be evident from the invoices, copies of which were attached, along with extracts of the RG23A register to the return filed in the next month. The RT12 returns have been assessed and the departmental offices also visited the factory of the assessee. The fact of utilization of credit therefore was well within the department's knowledge. 4. The Commissioner's order has not dealt with this aspect and is entirely silent on it. We are of the view that the Commissioner should deal with it now, as he was required to do so earlier. 5. The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for this limited purpose and for determining the consequent liability to duty and penalty, if any, to the appellant." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff Entry 7208.31, providing the description as "exceeding 5mm in thickness". Other category ofstripis classified under 7208.39. On perusal of both the tariff entries i.e. 7208.31 and 7208.39, it reveals that the goods under the later heading only covers the strips of not exceeding 5 mm. Thus, it is evident from the invoice dated 19.11.1998 that the appellant had purchased H.R. Coils of below 5 mm in thickness, which was not suitable for use in the manufacture of automobile axle. Since the original authority has recorded specific findings in denying the Modvat benefit to the appellant and more specifically, proceeded for the issue of limitation on the basis of the observation of the Tribunal recorded vide order dated 05.04.2004, I am of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of limitation can stand for judicial scrutiny. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, so far as it confirmed the adjudged demand against the appellant. 10. With regard to the appeal filed by Revenue regarding imposition of penalty on Shri Uday kumar Vinzanekar, Director of the assessee Company, I find that the original authority has recorded the findings that Revenue had not made the said Director as respondent during the course of initial show cause proceedings and, accordingly the Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2004 had not specifically recorded any findings with regard to imposition of penalty on such Director. Further, in the present appeal petition, the Revenue has also not made such Director as party to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
