2017 (11) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o.27/2009 dt. 21/01/2009 whereas in another impugned order dt. 25/11/2013, he rejected the appeal of the appellant. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in appeal No.E/26025/2013 are taken. 3. The appellant is a metal scrap dealer having Central Excise registration. He has purchased the sunken ship MV Den Den from M/s. Fair Deal Suppliers Ltd., Ahmedabad who were the first purchasers of the ship for breaking under Bill of Entry No.27/2009 dt. 27/01/2009 cleared from Mangalore port. As per the agreement dt. 21/01/2009 entered into between the appellant and M/s. Fair Deal Suppliers Ltd., the appellant purchased the ship outr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Section 11AC read with Rule 25. After following the due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dt. 19/12/2011 confirmed the duty of Rs. 3,02,756/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty alleging suppression. The Assistant Commissioner also held that the appellant is not eligible to avail CENVAT credit under the said Bill of Entry as the same is not in the name of the appellant and disallowed the debit of Rs. 1,65,464/- from CENVAT credit towards balance amount of duty payable. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order dt. 22/01/2013 allowed the CENVAT credit availed under the Bill of Entry No.27/2009 d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CCE [1989(43) ELT 195 (SC)] ii. Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs. CCE [1994(74) ELT 9 (SC)] iii. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2002(146) ELT 481 (SC)] 5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that when the appeal with the Commissioner(Appeals) was pending, the appellant received another show-cause notice dt. 11/09/2012 from the Additional Commissioner on the same issue alleging irregular availment of CENVAT credit of Rs. 14,74,189/- availed on the basis of Bill of Entry dt. 27/01/2009 read with Rule 14 of the CCRs. In reply to the said notice, the appellant submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has already taken a decision on the matter and disallowed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 14,74,189/- on the ground that the Bill of Entry No.27/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 14,74,189/- under the Bill of Entry dt. 27/10/2009 has already been decided by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide OIA dt. 22/01/2013 allowing the appeal of the appellant after examining the issue in detail. He further submitted that once the Commissioner(Appeals) has already allowed the CENVAT Credit, subsequent issue of show-cause notice as well as adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner and Commissioner are not warranted under law and the Additional Commissioner and Commissioner(Appeals) have no authority and jurisdiction to review the order of the Commissioner passed earlier. 6. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 7.1. After considering the submissions of both the parties and pe....