2013 (10) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S.P. Kesarwani, Counsels, for the Petitioner. Shri Nishant Mishra, Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER We have heard Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi for the appellant-department. Sri Nishant Mishra appears for the respondent-assessee. 2. This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :- "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....95,04,020/- respectively. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Div. III, Ghaziabad, dropped the demand to the tune of Rs. 66,37,590/- and 86,49,445.86. 4. The Department filed the appeals on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has worked out the amount of Modvat credit on the basis of insurance claim filed by the respondent, without mentioning as to the admissibility/correctness of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding that the appeal was filed on vague pleas. The Revenue simply pleaded that the demand was dropped without any verification. The Tribunal further found that the plea was raised, without any evidence to rebut the findings of fact given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We do not find any error of facts or in law in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the Adjudicating Authority had take....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s availed by the respondent after verifying from the record, was dropped. On the question No. (b), we find that the Tribunal, after going into the merits of the matter, had found that the appeal was dismissed after finding that the Adjudicating Authority has considered all the issues, and that the Revenue was raising vague pleas before the Appellate Authority. 8. The findings of the Adjudicatin....