2007 (2) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aps Revenue proceeded against the appellants and disallowed the Modvat credit to the tune of Rs 11,45,468/- vide the following orders (i) OIO No 4/92 dated 10-1-1992; (ii) OIO No. 8/92 dated 27-2-1992 and (iii) OIO No. 20/93 dated 3-3-1993 on the ground that the M/s. APSRTC and M/s. APSEB from whom the wastes and scrap was purchased are not manufacturers and hence, the scrap was not generated during the course of manufacture. The appellants paid the duty demanded under protest even in 1993. They were not successful before the Commissioner (A), however, the CEGAT, Madras in its Final Order No. 1008/1996 dated 31-5-1996 [2000 (124) E.L.T. 572 (Tribunal)] allowed the appeals by way of remand to the Original Authority. Even though the Tribunal'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs, the department without any authority of law kept the amount paid by the appellants. The learned advocate relied on the following case laws. (i) Classic Computer Service v. CCE, Guntur - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 517 (Tri.- Bang.) (ii) Motor Industries Company Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 315 (Tri. - Bang.) (iii) Parle International Ltd. v. UOI - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 329 (Guj.) The learned advocate emphasized the point that amount paid during the dispute should be treated as pre-deposit in the light of various decisions of the Tribunals/Courts. Once such payments are recognized as pre-deposits, the same should have been refunded. He further relied on CBEC Circular No. 802/35/2004 dated 8-12-2004. 5. The learned Departmenta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he fact that a de novo matter is taken up after a lapse of six years from the date of CEGAT's order shows that the machinery of supervision has completely broken down and gone haywire. All the supervisory officers had abdicated their responsibilities. In the second round of litigation after the remand order, the department took the same stand as in the original proceedings to deny the Modvat credit. The Commissioner (A) in her order dated 6- 2-2004 has elaborately gone through the facts of the case and has held that the appellants had been denied the facility of deemed credit by illogical application of assumed views. This order of the Commissioner (A) has been accepted by the department and has resulted in refund of the amount erroneously ....