AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts of the case of the appellant are as follows :- The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of additives for lubricating oil classifiable under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant discharged duties of excise at the time of clearance of final products from their factory. The appellant availed CENVAT credit in respect of excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input service. Show Cause Notices dated 6-11-2007 and 4-6-2010 were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, and Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, respectively demanding a sum of Rs. 4,14,259/- and Rs. 1,02,423/- being the CENVAT credit taken on inputs, which were not used in the man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 21-10-2016, dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant is before this Court with the present Appeal. 5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record. 6. Perusal of material on records would show that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of additives for lubricating oil classifiable under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant availed CENVAT credit in respect of excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input service. Show Cause Notices were issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai on the ground that during the course of verification of CENVAT cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ie., on 28-3-2011 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming the demand of Rs. 1,02,423/-, being the CENVAT Credit which has been taken by the appellant herein and an order of recovery of same under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with appropriate interest under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, came to be passed, apart from imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- for show cause notice dated 4-6-2010 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- for notice dated 6-11-2010. 8. In the aforesaid Orders-in-Original, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has given a finding that the assessee had claimed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence to the materials received and materials stored. 10. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise also held that the shortages in input stock occurring due to handling and transportation within the manufacturing facility, due to natural causes like evaporation, dryage, differences in calibration of weighbridges, short accountal due to clerical error, wastage by job workers, due to high volatile and very meagre shortage over a long period of time etc., only have been held to be admissible and thus came to a conclusion that the loss to the extent claimed by the assessee cannot be upheld and that the assessee is liable to pay the amount demanded, in the show cause notices along with interest and penalty, as stated above. 11. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issue, for the previous period, and the result of the appeal disposed by the order dated 29-10-2015 may be same, but not for seeking parallel remedy. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that without appreciating the contentions made by the appellants before the Tribunal in challenging the previous order dated 29-10-2015, the Tribunal has passed an order in the Rectification Petition in Miscellaneous Order No. 40476 of 2016 on 21-10-2016 modifying the previous order dated 29-10-2015. 13. To decide the instant case, it is appropriate to extract the above two orders of the Appellate Tribunal. (i) The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Final Order Nos. 41689 and 41690 of 2015, dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies the requirement of the present miscellaneous application. Accordingly, MA is allowed with the direction that the order shall read as under :- "Appellant explains that against the appellate order for the previous period, appellant is before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CMA. Following judicial discipline, present appeals also stand dismissed for the reasons stated in the Final Order No. 40149 to 40152 of 2015 dated 13-2-2015." 14. From the reading of the facts, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and has to be set aside for the reason that the Tribunal has not applied its mind and decided the appeals, but mistakenly passed a cryptic and non-speaking order in the appeals, ....