2015 (10) TMI 1695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the first OIA No.61/99 dt.30.3.1999 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of predeposit against which appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final order No.661/2006 dt.28.7.2006 remanded the matter to LAA by taking into account that appellant have already reversed the entire amount as predeposit. Pursuant to remand of Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order wherein he rejected the appeal of the assessee and upheld the demand. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that out of the total disputed credit, an amount of Rs. 19,50,097 is towards credit availed on the certificate issued by Customs after introduction of Rule 57F (4A) w.e.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit. He also submits that regarding the denial of cenvat credit under Rule 57E, this Tribunal again vide Order No.975/2006 dt.26.10.2006, dismissed the assessee's appeal following earlier Tribunal's order (supra). 5. After hearing both sides, I find that the first issue relates to denial of modvat credit availed on 57E certificates issued by the Customs for payment of CVD after the amendment of Section 57F (4A) w.e.f16.3.95. The second issue is denial of modvat credit on ineligible document issued by the supplier who is not registered with Central Excise.  6. As regards the denial of cenvat credit availed by the appellant based on 57E certificate issued by Customs, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appellant's o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that Rule 57F(17) (erstwhile 57F(4A) has not stated that any subsequent credits to which the assessee may become eligible on account of other provisions of law would also lapse if the original credits in regard to such differential duty credits which had been availed prior to 16-3-95 had also lapsed on account of Notification No.11/95, dated 16-3-95. They submit that they are entitled for the credit availed based on certificates under Rule 57E. We would have accepted their contention if they had made original payment of duty after 16-3-95 and certificate-A was issued in respect of duty paid on the inputs on or after 16-3-95. Since the facts are otherwise, in our opinion, the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted wi....