TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings against the appellants were initiated by issuing a show-cause notice dated 8.6.1989. The allegation in the show-cause notice is that M/s Central Cables (P) Ltd., the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric wires and cables falling under Chapter sub-heading 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and filed declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules for taking modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Rules. In the declaration, the appellants declared copper and aluminium wire rods falling Chapter heading 74 and 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as inputs to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. M/s Central Cables Pvt. Ltd. paid duty on cop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise Reference No. 4/2003 set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. In pursuance of the remand order passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Tribunal vide order dated 23.2.2011 again set aside the demand and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants. Revenue challenged the order before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble High Court vide order 24.2.2012 in Central Excise Appeal No. 25 of 2011 again set aside the Tribunal's order dated 23.2.2011 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to take fresh decision on all questions as formulated in para 6 of the judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 5. ... 6. The Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on which the matter has been remanded, the adjudicating authority has not given any finding. The correspondence now produced by the appellants also required verification. In view of this, we find that the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the order dated 13.10.2010 in Central Excise Appeal No. 4/2003 and in the order dated 24.2.2011 in Central Excise Appeal No. 25/2011. We, therefore, remand the matter to the adjudicating authority after setting aside the impugned order to decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. 9. As the show-cause notice was issued in the year 1989, therefore the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Order-in-Original No. 9/90 dated 3.4.1990, the Commissioner had accordingly ordered as follows: - "Under the circumstances, I hereby order confirmation of duty amount of Rs. 16,44,416.91 short paid/excess credit taken, under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 944 read with proviso to Section 11A. Further, I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on M/s Central Cables (P) Ltd. under Rule 137Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further, I impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on M/s Omega Scientific, Nagpur, M/s Vidarbha Cables, Nagpur and M/s Central Capacitors, Nagpur under Rule 173Q read with Rules 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944" Thus in the first order in original the commissioner had a) Confirmed demand of duty/ cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wise. (vi) Whether extended period is applicable in this case or otherwise. It is noticed that the matter was remanded to Commissioner to give his findings in respect of para 6 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment dated 13.10.2010. The very first question raised in that relates to: - "6. The question as to whether the Central Cables (P) Ltd. had transferred the raw materials to the job workers, if transferred the goods for manufacture of intermediate product, then how the job worker could take credit of duty paid by Central Cables (P) Ltd. on raw materials purchased from MMTC under actual user conditions has not been considered by the Authorities below. Similarly, if the respondent nos. 3 to 5 were the job work....