9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant were covered by three entries of exemption notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 01.03.2006. The entry at Sl. No. 90 prescribed the concessional rate of duty @ 8% advalorem, which was subject to fulfilment of the conditions itemized at Sl. No.10 appended thereto. Another entry at Sl. No.91 prescribed the concessional rate of duty of 12% advalorem, which was subject to fulfilment of the condition No. 11. The third entry at Sl. No.93, which was unconditional, also prescribed concessional rate of 12% advalorem. 1.1. In the budget for the year 2008-09, the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. at Sl. No. 90 was amended by Notification No. 4/2008- C.E. dated 01.03.2008 in changing the rate of duty from 8% to 'NIL', retaining all other co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. No.90 of Notification No. 4/2006, the first clearance of 3500 MTs during any financial year was absolutely exempted without any further conditions w.e.f. 01.03.2008. The matter arising out of the show cause notice dated 29.04.2011 was adjudicated vide order dated 25.04.2012, wherein the proposals made therein were confirmed by the learned Original Authority 2. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared for the appellant. Heard Shri Sydney D'Silva, learned A.R. for the Revenue and examined the case records. He has reiterated the findings recorded by the original authority. Further, he has relied upon the orders of this Tribunal passed in the case of Sidhmukh F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mended. Thus, there was no contravention of the Cenvat statute in availment and utilization of the Cenvat credit. Further, it is not the case of Revenue that the duty amount collected by the appellant was not deposited with the Government Exchequer. Hence, under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 11D ibid cannot be invoked for recovery of the duty amount in question. 5. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra, in view of the order Nos. A/607-611/15/EB dated 05.02.2015, passed by the Tribunal in the case of Balkrishna Paper Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I, reported in 2015-TIOL-1100-CESTAT-MUM. The relevant paragraph in the said order is extracted herein below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
