2009 (3) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chinery. The range officers were informed by the appellant. The Revenue's allegation in the show cause notice is that despite various letter written by the Superintendent of Central Excise incharge of the appellant's refinery and the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Divison-1,Vizag, the appellant had not responded regarding the exact details of loss of inputs/capital goods in the fire. In view of this, a show cause notice dated 18-6-2002 was issued to the appellants for recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,94,848/- as the amount of credit on the inputs lying in stock in the refinery on the date of fire and an amount of Rs. 10,27,721/- of the credit of the inputs which contained in the final products, which were destroyed i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dutta Metal Industries v. CCE, Mumbai as reported at 2007 (217) E.L.T. 306. 4. The learned SDR would submit that the Adjudicating Authority has passed a detailed order clearly indicating the failure on the part of the appellant to inform the details regarding all the inputs lost in the fire. It is her submission that it was the duty of the appellant to give the details. She reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. 5. We have considered the submissions made in detail by both sides and perused the records. 5.1 We find that the issue can be decided on only one point itself. It is seen from the show cause notice that it seeks to recov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The difference between the expressions, repeal, amendment, suppression, or rescinding and substitution have been considered by the Bench in this order. The order in the case of M/s. Sunrise Structurals & Engineering Ltd., has been followed in M/s Milton Polyplast v. CCE, Thane, vide order No. A-633-635/WZB/2005/C-II dated 27-5-2005 [2006 (201) E.L.T. 372 (Tribunal)] the decision cited by the Ld. SDR namely, The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner (Civil Writ Petition No. 15029/2005) [2007 (207) E.L.T. 58 (P & H)] which has held that even after omission of Section 3A from the Central Excise Act, 1944, the liability is not wiped out does not come to the rescue of the revenue as in the present cas....