TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the chargeability to duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act can be enforced without there being a removal of excisable goods under Rule 9 or for captive consumption under Rule 49 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules? (b) Whether manufacture will complete only when the excisable goods are marketable? (c) Whether Notification No.67/95, dated 16.3.1995 is clarificatory in nature and has retrospective operation? (d) Whether the Tribunal is right in not considering the scope of notification applicable to the present case? (e) Whether the demand under the extended period of limitation is permissible when there is no clandestine removal? (f) Whether the Tribunal is right in con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S.C.N.No.21/98, dated 25.5.1998, requiring the appellant to show cause on the following issues: "(1) Why the MODVAT credit of Rs. 1,39,333/- availed on paint based on silicon resin and water based Poly Tedra Flouride Ethelene (P.T.F.E.) material under Rule 57A, as detailed in Annexure-I, which are used exclusively in manufacture of exempted product, should not be denied under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 57I of Central Excise Rules, 1944; (2) Why the MODVAT credit of Rs. 47,719/- availed on Elgi Screw Compressor,, Air Compressor, HVLP equipment, etc. under Rule 57Q as detailed in Annexure-I, which are used exclusively in manufacture of exempted products should not be denied in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 57U of Central Excise Rules, 1944; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usted towards the above proposed demand; (9) Why the duty amount paid by the assessee from time to time towards the clear of 0.80mm SS coils from the stock of 35.015 tons (as recorded by officers during their visit on 6.6.96 under a mahazar) subsequently should not be confirmed and adjusted towards the above proposed demand." The details of the wrongful availment of MODVAT credit are set out in the statement of grounds annexed to the show cause notice as Annexures I to IV. 2.3. The appellant submitted a reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the matter was considered on merits and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, adjudicated the matter and passed the following order: "28. Summing up the above discussions, the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Act 1944, is imposable since the evasion had taken place prior to 29.8.96. 2.4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee as well as the department preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee only to the extent of reducing the quantum of penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appeal filed by the department was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2.5. Assailing the said order, the assessee has preferred this appeal on the substantial questions of law, referred supra. 3. We have heard Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.Mallika Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and original authority. 4. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the purpose and intention of the Act and the bonafides of the appellants the learned authority ought to have extended the benefit of MODVAT credit. 6.2. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Repro India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom.) to plead that even in terms of Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (as it stood then), the benefit of Modvat credit was available, since the goods were exported. 6.3. We find that the decision in Repro India Ltd. case, referred supra, was rendered subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the appellant would like to canvass the plea raised in paragraph (3) of the grounds of appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them. We find no reason is given by the Tribunal on the legal plea raised by the appellant. The Tribunal has merely stated that there is no merit in the assessee's case. We find that the order of the Tribunal is bereft of reasons and there is no analysis of the question of law raised before them. In our considered opinion, on this score also the order of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced. 8. Even in respect of limitation, despite a specific plea taken in paragraph (6) of the appeal grounds, the Tribunal has simply rejected the same saying that the plea has not been substantiated. We find that the order is cryptic and bereft of reasons. 9. In such view of the matter, we find no reason to test the order of the Tribunal in the lig....