2010 (5) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid on input namely Furnace Oil & used as Fuel in the manufacture of Steam which was sold for subsequent use outside the factory of production ?   (2)Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case to reject the Appeal on the ground that though the Revenue succeeds on merits of the subject-matter, however, failed on the issue of limitation? (3) Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case to held that there was no suppression or malafide by the said Unit, in the light of the then prevailing case-laws? (4) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has committed an error in law in ignoring the undisputed and admitted fact of supplying /selling the huge quantities of Steam to MBIL by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the adjudicating authority to submit that the adjudicating authority had recorded findings of fact indicating that the respondent had not disclosed facts and details regarding manufacture and sale of such steam to Mafatlal Burlington Industries Ltd. and availed Modvat credit of duty paid on Furnace oil used for manufacture of such steam, and as such suppression of facts had been established and proved.   5. In so far as proposed questions No. 1 and 4 are concerned, in the light of the fact that the Tribunal has decided in favour of the revenue on merits, the said questions do not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal.   6. As regards proposed questions No.2 and 3, a perusal of the order made by the adjudicating autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in its impugned order has found that on merits the order of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Solaris Chemtech Ltd., 2007 (214) ELT 481. The Tribunal however found that the show cause notice had admittedly been issued after the normal period of limitation; that during the relevant period, there was a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal as well as of this High Court in favour of the assessee and was accordingly of the view that as such it cannot be said that there was any suppression or malafide on the part of the respondent so as to justify invocation of the larger period of limitation. Accordingly, while holding in favour of the reven....