TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondents had raised two Central Excise invoices covering clearances of bright bars involving duty of Rs.58,465/- to M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works but failed to debit the Cenvat account by the duty amount owing to clerical error. He accepted the plea of clerical error for not debiting the duty due, as the respondents had not been habitual offender and had sufficient credit balance in their RG23A Part-II account when the clearances had been made. As regards demand of duty of Rs.5,83,507/-, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the demand was raised on account of shortage ascertained by the officers on the visit to their factory of the respondents on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issued more than two years after the date of determination of shortage was barred by limitation. He relied on the decision of the Govt. of India reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 316 (GOI) and the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 235 to hold that the demand of Rs.5,83,507/- was barred by limitation. 3. In the appeal filed by the Revenue it is submitted that since the intention to evade payment of duty was evident from the assesses's failure to debit in RG 23A account in tune with the Central Excise invoices raised for clearance of finished goods involving duty of Rs.58,465/-, the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly vacated the demand of the said amount of duty, applicable interest and the penalty impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be barred by limitation by the lower appellate authority. The Revenue has not established that the case law relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) were superseded or overruled by any superior judicial fourm. The impugned order deserves to be sustained. I have also heard the Jt. CDR who reiterates the grounds in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. I have carefully considered the case records and the submissions by both sides. In the instant case the respondents had received 320.350 MTs of black bars during the year 1996-97 for conversion into bright bars. They availed credit of duty paid on the inputs received. The original authority found that the two consignments involving a duty of Rs.58,465/- had been cleared without payments of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invoking Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules for shortage claimed to have been ascertained by the officers. The assessee has claimed that they had no facility to weigh this much quantity of steel and that shortage was not physically ascertained by the officers. This claim has not been refuted by the original authority. The Show Cause Notice proposed to recover credit availed by the assessee without receiving the inputs. However, the order of the original authority did not give a finding to this effect. Demand on a basis contrary to the proposal in the Show Cause Notice is not sustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that this demand had been raised beyond the normal period of limitation and that longer period could not be validly invo....