9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such credit has been allowed to them. If Revenue had any objection to the order-in-original they should have preferred an appeal before the appropriate authority. By way of issuing second show cause notice they could not have denied the benefit granted to the appellant in the first round of proceedings. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 1461 of 2012 - A/85838/2022 - Dated:- 12-9-2022 - HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sachin Chitnis with Shri Siddhanth Sriram, Advocates, for the Appellant Shri P.K. Acharya, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. US/401/RGD/2012 dated 18.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be recovered from them. iii) Penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 should/ not be imposed on them. 2.2 This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner as per the order-in-original referred in para 1 above and appeal filed against the said order has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri Sachin Chitnis with Shri Siddhanth Sriram, Advocates, for the appellant and Shri P.K. Acharya, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant, learned counsel submits:- That certain demands were made against the appellant in 1998 for denying inadmissible credit. While they conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d notice F No. C Ex/RR-I/show-cause notice/V.I/98 dt. 3.12.98, I hereby allow modvat of Rs. 3,76,618.64 (Rs. Three Lakhs Seventy six thousand six hundred eighteen and paise sixty four only) under the provision of Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2) In respect of Show cause cum demand notice F No. C Ex/RR-I/show-cause notice/V.I/98 dt. 24.2.99, I hereby allow modvat of Rs. 4,44,191.00 (Rs. Four lakhs Forty four thousand one hundred ninety one only) under the provisions of Rule 75 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3) In respect of Show cause cum demand notice F No. C Ex/RR-I/show-cause notice/V.I/98 dt. 25.5.99, I hereby allow modvat of Rs. 1,91,363/- (Rs. One lakh Ninety one thousand three hundred sixty three only) u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the decisions rendered in favour of the appellant has been decided by various authorities referred below:- Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2010 (261) ELT 696 (Tri.-Bang.)] Vardhaman Acrylics Ltd. [2013 (292) ELT 558 (Tri.- Ahmd.)] Tantech Agro Chemicals Ltd. [2015-TIOL-1982-CESTATMAD] Sharda Forging and Stampings P. Ltd. [2012-TIOL-1216- CESTAT-DEL]. 4.3 In the case of BDH Industries Ltd. [2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri.-LB)] relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) for denying Cenvat Credit, the issue involved is not the same as the issue before me. In the case of BDH Industries the assessee had taken suo moto refund of excise duty paid by them which was disputed and the Tribunal in para 12 has observed as follows:- 12. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case the appellant has not paid any excise duty for which they are required to make claim for refund of duty. It is the case where certain credit taken by them was sought to be denied and during the course of the proceedings for denial of such Cenvat Credit, the appellant reversed the entire credit sought to be disallowed to them. Subsequently major portion of such credit has been allowed to them. On this very ground the case is distinguishable from the facts of BDH Industries Ltd. In my view the manner in which the second round of proceedings has gone as per the order-in-original adjudicating the show cause notices issued to the appellant in first round to nullity. This is not prescribed by law. If Revenue had any objection to the order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
