9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Sanchis, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri B.K. Damani, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order] - During the search of the factory premises of M/s. Shri Yogi Steel P. Ltd., Ahmedabad on 13/14-4-04, Central Excise officers recovered four Central Excise invoices out of which two were found to be parallel invoices of other two original invoices. Subsequent investigations and verifications resulted in admission of receipt of excess quantity of MS Ingots under parallel invoices, resulting in excess availment of cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 54,094/-. The officers seized MS Ingots covered by these four invoices in the factory of M/s. Shri Yogi Steel Pvt. Ltd., valued at Rs. 13,56,921/-. Show cause notice was issued to M/s. Signora Texport P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore Commissioner (Appeals) against the O.I.O., but since only one appeal was filed, the appellant chose to pursue the appeal on behalf of the Shri Yogi Steel Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-imposed on the director Shri Suryakant J. Shah has not been challenged and is not in dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that it was filed after more than 1 ½ years of receipt of O.I.O. which was received by the director on 4-2-05 whereas the appeal was filed on 6-11-06. The appellant argued before Commissioner (Appeals) that no show cause notice was issued to them and no copy of the O.I.O. was sent to them and therefore they were not aware of any such order against them. Commissioner (Appeals) rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. (470). On the other hand, Shri Yogi Steel Pvt. Ltd. has filed appeal against rejection of appeal on the ground of time bar by Commissioner (Appeals). They also submitted that issue of show cause notice is a mandatory requirement of law. They also stated that delay should have been condoned. Further, the Assistant Commissioner, Silvassa has no jurisdiction to pass order against the petitioner company since they were not a party before him. 5. Heard both sides. Both learned JDR and learned advocate on behalf of the party reiterate points in the appeal made by them which are discussed above. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by both sides. The only issue to be decided is whether the appropriation of cash deposit made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seizure as lifted since show cause notice was not issued and return the cash deposit made by the company. There was no need for Shri Yogi Steel Pvt. Ltd. to file appeal against non-existent order against them which they filed and has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The decision of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Mudra Offset Pvt. Ltd. cited above is of no help to Revenue, since it was not the case of the Revenue or the parties in that case that no show cause notice had been issued to the persons from whom the goods were seized. I am also not able to agree that liability arises from the bond executed at the time of provisional release even when show cause notice is not issued. The bond admittedly provides liberty to Govt. to adjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
