TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company, is a holder of Central Excise Registration and is a manufacturer of data processing machines and is also availing benefits under Modvat Scheme. On 25-10-1996, Superintendent of Central Excise visited the factory premises of the respondent-assessee for verification of the stock of inputs on which Modvat credit was availed. It was noticed that there was a vast difference between physical stocks available and that shown in RG 23A Part 1 Register. The Managing Director of the respondent-assessee, in his statement dated 25-10-1996 given before the Superintendent of Central Excise, West Range, Mangalore, admitted that the actual physical stock of inputs and entries in the RG 23A Part 1 Register did not tally because the respondent-assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the respondent-assessee, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order in original Sl. No. 14/2000, dated 9-8-2000, dropped further proceedings in the matter after giving a warning to the respondent-assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, the Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore. The Commissioner (Appeals), by the virtue of the order in appeal No. 591/2002, dated 4-10-2002, allowed the appeal. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before CESTAT, Bangalore. The CESTAT, Bangalore, by the Order No. 1017/2005, dated 28-6-2005, held that the second statement of the Managing Director wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 (S.C.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.) allowed the appeal, vide its order dated 20-12-2006, holding that the show cause notice was issued belatedly and that too without prior permission of the Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. 12. On appeal before the High Court of Karnataka, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal had rightly recorded a finding of fact stating that initiation of proceedings against the respondent-assessee was barred by limitation. 13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the Appellant-Revenue has filed this appeal before this Court. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Revenue submitted that the decision of this Cour....