9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set up in the show cause notices on the ground that the Appellant had incorrectly paid under Section 3 of the Act instead of 3A thereof - Notification No. 33/97-CE(NT) dated 01.08.1997 and Notification No. 34/97-CE(NT) dated 01.08.1997 imposing restriction on MODVAT availment in respect of goods liable to duty under Section 3A of the Act had no application in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly there remains no justification for supporting the purported conclusions drawn by the Commissioner that the Appellant should have paid duty under Section 3 of the Act and that it had irregularly availed MODAT/CENVAT on the inputs used in or in relation to the notified final products. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no material on record to substantiate the charge warranting invocation of extended period of limitation - there are no ingredients for attracting extended period of limitation in terms of Rule 11A of the Act/Rule 57I of the Rules. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 57I of the Rules and Section 11AC of the Act are set aside - in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Stee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise had accorded permission for discharge of duty liability under Section 3 of the Act for its products. Subsequently, for the period w.e.f. 01.08.1998 the Appellant had been directed to discharge duty liability as regards the notified non-alloy products in terms Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 under Section 3A of the Act due to changed circumstances. The Appellant complied with the aforesaid directions and paid Central Excise duty thereon and availed the admissible CENVAT Credit. The Central Excise returns were regularly filed. On 21.03.2002 and 02.04.2002 three Show Cause Notices were issued alleging, inter alia, that the Appellant had not been entitled to avail CENVAT Credit in terms of Notification No. 34/97-CE (NT) dated 01.08.1997 as amending Notification No. 01.03.1994 vis- -vis inputs used in the manufacture of goods notified under Section 3A of the Act. It was alleged in the said Show Cause Notices that the Appellant ought to have discharged its duty liability under Section 3A of the Act, being covered by the Compounded Levy Sechme, which the Appellant had failed to do and, accordingly, the Appellant had incorrectly availed the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal s order dated 27.02.2023 in the Appellant s own case. While upholding the de novo Order-in-Original dated 16.03.2010 in the Appellant s case, the Tribunal held that the Appellant had correctly paid duty for the relevant period under Section 3 of the Act. The basis of the said findings is that the Commissioner s permission granted under the Department s letters dated 23.09.1997 and 20.04.1998 had neither been withdrawn nor challenged and the Appellants had duly acted on the strength of the said permission and the Appellant could not have been faulted in this regard. As such the allegation that the Appellant was required to discharge its duty liability under Section 3A of the Act instead of Section 3 thereof, cannot be and does not survive. The Adjudicating authority had placed reliance upon the letter dated 18.05.1999 of the Assistant Commissioner in favour of the Appellant. The natural corollary of the rejection of the Department s Appeal against the aforesaid de novo Order-in-Original dated 16.03.2010 is that the assessee had correctly paid its Central Excise duty liability under Section 3 of the Act and correctly availed CENVAT/MODVAT. The purported demands against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant had worked and paid Central Excise duty pursuant to the clarifications/orders issued by the Commissioner from time to time. Further, the show cause notices had been issued based on the Appellant s records relating to manufacture and clearance of final products. The entire case for denial of MODVAT/CENVAT had been set up in the show cause notices on the ground that the Appellant had incorrectly paid under Section 3 of the Act instead of 3A thereof. We find that Notification No. 33/97-CE(NT) dated 01.08.1997 and Notification No. 34/97-CE(NT) dated 01.08.1997 imposing restriction on MODVAT availment in respect of goods liable to duty under Section 3A of the Act had no application in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly there remains no justification for supporting the purported conclusions drawn by the Commissioner that the Appellant should have paid duty under Section 3 of the Act and that it had irregularly availed MODAT/CENVAT on the inputs used in or in relation to the notified final products. 7. We further find that there is no material on record to substantiate the charge warranting invocation of extended period of limitation. In any event whatsoever the issue of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
