2011 (5) TMI 772

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the Tribunal were M/s. Samtel Colour Ltd. and M/s. JCT Electronics Ltd. 2. The entire controversy involved in the matter is of the inputs used by the present respondent in respect of the goods manufactured by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 3. The contention of Revenue was that the respondent herein had returned some goods which were purported to be defective. But in the guise of it, M/s. Samtel Colour Ltd. and M/s. JCT Electronics Ltd. had, in fact, given them new colour tubes instead of repaired colour tubes. 4. In the order-in-original in so far as MODVAT Credit recovery was ordered in respect of the sum of Rs. 77,18,690.67 and in respect of CPTs sent for repair but not received back within the prescribed time lim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as allowed by the common order dated 28-10-2003. 6. The Commissioner aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal preferred an appeal against M/s. Samtel Colour Ltd. being Central Excise Appeal Defective No. 153 of 2004, the substantial questions of law which were sought to be raised in the appeal were as under : *       (a) Whether supply of fresh/new CPTs by the respondent to M/s. Samsung in the Garb of repair of defective CPTs and thus facilitating the fraudulent availment of MODVAT Credit (to M/s. Samsung) attracts levy of penalty against the respondents under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? *       (b) Whether the Appellate Tribunal can proceed o....