TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same directly to job worker M/s. Sodhi Engineering for grinding and cutting. As per the agreements with the supplier, i.e. M/s. ISSL, the supplier has to bear the cost of cutting and grindings losses occurred at job worker's premises. Accordingly, the Appellant raised debit notes to M/s. ISSL for short quantity of inputs received. As per provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Appellant required to reverse the proportionate CENVAT Credit in respect short receipt of inputs for which the Appellant issued debit notes. On pointing out by the department, the Appellant reversed the CENVAT Credit for receipt of short quantity of inputs due to loss in the cutting and grinding of the inputs at job worker's end. The period involved is May, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l decisions in the cases of Bharat Radiators Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I 1999 (112) ELT 918 (Tri), Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rocket Engineering Corpn. Ltd. 2008 (223) ELT 347 (Bom) and Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III 2006 (194) ELT 39 (Tri-Mum). 5.2 She further submitted that the Lower Authority cannot travel beyond the allegations of the Show Cause Notice. To support this contention, she relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Transpek Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara 2001 (138) ELT 189 (Tri-Mum). 5.3 On the issue of limitation, she submitted that limitation for the extended period is not invokable unless the show-cause notice put the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout any merits and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Agarwal, learned SDR has submitted the following in his counter reply:- 6(a) With regard to the issue of interest, he submitted that mere mention of a wrong provision of law does not amount to drop the Show Cause Notice. To support this contention, he placed relied on Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. 1996 (82) ELT 441 (SC), wherein it was held that mere mention of a wrong provision of law when the power exercised is available even though under a different provision, is by itself not sufficient to invalidable the exercise of that power. 6(b) With regard Interest and penalty, he argued that the interest for delayed pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Cause Notice and the Appellant cannot go beyond the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice. The Appellant, at this stage, cannot deny the duty liability. As they have admitted the duty liability, they are liable to pay interest and penalty also. 6(e) On issue of limitation, he also submitted that the demand is not time barred. 7. Heard. 8. I have gone through all the arguments advanced by both the parties and reliance placed by them on record. 8(a) I agree with the argument advanced by the learned SDR that mere mention of a wrong provision of law does not amount to drop the Show Cause Notice. With regard the demand of interest on delayed payment, I relied on Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. SKF Ltd. 2009 (93) RLT 237 (SC....