2002 (4) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri Atul Saxena, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 27-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Headings 29 & 39 of the CETA. They were purchasing va....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... accordingly, served with a show cause notice, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand against them. The Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed his order with modification that the eligibility of; the Modvat to the appellants shall be examined by the A.C. or D.C. 3. The learned Counsel has raised two fold contentions before us. Firstly, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mounted to manufacture, There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants ever filed any declaration or sent an intimation about their activity, to the excise department. There was apparently suppression of material facts by them from the excise department. The contention of the Counsel that the excise department knew about the activity of the appellants before the budgetary changes of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....limitation had been rightly invoked against them. 7. However, the second contention of the Counsel, in our view, deserves to be accepted. When the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the A.C./D.C. to examine the eligibility of the Modvat credit to the appellants, in view of the various judicial pronouncements in identical cases and extend the benefit of the same, he should have also set as....