TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the CESTAT‟). The facts leading to the present appeal may be recapitulated as under:- 2. The appellant is engaged in manufacturing of TV Cabinets for which polystyrene is an input. The appellant was clearing polystyrene to its job workers and private challans and same was receiving back from the job worked product under similar private challans. Thereafter, the appellant was manufacturing the TV Cabinets and, on their clearances, availing MODVAT Credit of the duty originally paid on the polystyrene. 3. A show cause notice dated 27th March, 2000 was issued to the appellant alleging therein that 1,07,925 kg of polystyrene shown to have been removed by the appellant to its jo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....57-5 read with Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules and interest be not charged and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 be not imposed upon him. The appellant filed reply to this show cause notice and contested the matter. 5. After adjudication, the learned Additional Commissioner passed adjudication orders dated 30th October, 2000 confirming the demand of Revenue of the refund of Modvat Credit availed by the appellant. The Additional Commissioner also imposed penalty upon the appellant under Section 11AC of the Act. The appellant preferred appeal there against before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). It was inter alia submitted that the Modvat Credit was rightly claimed. It was also contended by the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal the appellant had taken the plea that necessary documents were produced before the Tribunal but the Tribunal did not look into the same. The issue regarding penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was also raised. The appeal was however dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the appellant to move the Tribunal by way of Rectification of Mistake Application (RMA). Armed with this order, the appellant went back to the Tribunal and moved an application of RMA. Again the appellant raised both the issues. The appellant pleaded before the Tribunal that the Tribunal should accept the documents filed before it and on that basis set aside the order of directing the appellant to deposit back the Modvat Credit availed by it. This application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, rightly rejected the prayer of the appellant and held that there was no evidence on record that the goods which were sent for job workers were received by manufacturer, the Modvat Credit was wrongly availed by the appellant. 7. We may also note at this that before the Assistant Commissioner, statement of authorized signatory of M/s Novice Polymers was recorded wherein he had categorically stated that they had not received any inputs. It's a pure question of facts and, therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention of the appellant. 8. In so far as imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act is concerned, we are of the opinion that this appeals warrants to be allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are thus required to be established for invoking the extended period of limitation . If on the materials produced by the parties, the Tribunal had arrived at a finding of fact that there had been no suppression on the part of the appellant after 22nd January, 1991, the question of invoking the extended period of jurisdiction did not arise. The show cause notice dated 28th March, 1994 thus having been issued after the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act, was clearly barred by limitation". "20. In any view of the mater, whether a party is guilty of suppression of fact or not is essentially a question of fact. It does not per se give rise to substantial question of law per se." 9. We may, with advantage, referre....