2010 (8) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This order will dispose of CEA Nos.121 and 122 of 2010, as both arise from common order of the Tribunal. CEA No.121 of 2010 has been filed by M/s Vipin Metal Works under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the 1944 Act) against order dated 4.9.2009 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in appeal No.E-2330/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....STAT did commit an error of law in not considering the time barred demand? d)         Whether the learned CESTAT did commit an error of law in not considering that the Central Excise Officer duly authenticated the invoice before dispatch of the goods from the premises of M/s Capital Sales, Rewari? e)         Whether ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the appellant was based on bogus invoices. Show Cause Notice dated 5.8.2004 was issued to the appellant requiring it to show cause why benefit of CENVAT credit be not withdrawn and penalty imposed. After due consideration, benefit of CENVAT was ordered to be withdrawn and the amount was held to be recoverable with interest and penalty. On appeal, order of the adjudicating authority was set a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion was not signed and authorized by the competent officer. It was further submitted that the show cause notice issued on 5.8.2004 was barred by limitation as the period of duty was from July 2000 to October 2000. The Tribunal erred in ignoring the authenticated invoice from M/s Capital Sales, Rewari and also erred in not considering that invoice of M/s RK Enterprises, Faridabad was defaced by th....