2008 (10) TMI 641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant: Shri Anand Nainawati, Adv. Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) These two appeals filed by the appellant and one filed by Revenue are being disposed off by a common order, as they arise out of a same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Duty of Rs. 8,41,394/- and Rs. 38,84,590/- are confirmed against the appellants, by denying the benefit of modvat ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Cycles Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh as reported in 2003 (54) RLT 764 (CEGAT-Del.), as also in cases of CCE Chennai Vs. CEGAT Chennai 2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad.), CCE Vs. Jyoti Ltd. 2008 (223) ELT 171 (Guj.), Evergreen Engineering Co. P. Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai 2007 (215) ELT 134 (Tri-Mumbai). 3. The ratio of all these decisions is that the credit cannot be varied at recipients end on the ground that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 (Tribunal), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C.E., Aurangabad 2000 (125) ELT 477 (Tribunal), has held that setting aside duty under Section 11AC is indicative of the fact that extended period is not invocable in as much as there was no malafide on the part of the appellant.  As such, we hold that the demand is also barred by limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order ....