2017 (3) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al no. ST/605/2011-Mum filed by M/s Zaheer Vakil Estates Pvt Ltd. Order no. 06/P-III/STC/COMMR/2011 dated 3rd August 2011 impugned in the proceedings leading to our final order had confirmed demand of Rs. 5,77,095/- with interest of Rs. 1,32,035/- and, besides appropriating the amount already paid by assessee, had confirmed Rs. 89,291/- as short-paid tax under section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 along with interest thereon, and had also confirmed recovery of Rs. 6,10,423/- that was held to be irregularly availed CENVAT credit with interest thereon. Penalty was imposed under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 on the entire amount appropriated as well as that held to be recoverable. 2. Pointing out that our final order had, despite framing the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding the assessee, can justifiably conclude that this amount was also included in our final rendition of the operative part of the order. Such disallowance of the paid up amount as non-leviable was not intended or even communicated. 6. Apparently, the applicant-Commissioner has not comprehended the scheme of appellate hierarchy that has been established in Chapter VIA of Central Excise Act, 1944. Unlike Commissioners of Central Excise or the appropriate review committees, the Tribunal is not empowered to call for and scrutinise an order-in-original or order-in-appeal to ascertain its conformity to legality and propriety; that jurisdiction to review is vested in Commissioners and Chief Commissioners of specified collegial strength. The ju....