2018 (9) TMI 1436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....04.2011 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether or not Appellate Tribunal was in error in not following the binding precedent of the coordinate Bench cited before it in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. Mumbai-III Vs. CEAT Ltd. In 2010 (254) ELT 349 (Tri.Mumbai)?" 2. The short issue which falls for consideration now is whether the assessee was entitled to suo-motu avail credit of central excise duty which they have reversed? 3. The asssessee are manufactures of Bimetallic Strips and also copper-based powder which is used within their factory in the manufacture of steel strips. The assessee avail Cenvat Credit on the inputs procured by them and utilize the same for payment of Central Excise Duty on their finis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....redit on SKO on the basis of the invoices issued by IOCL who were not a registered dealer to pass on the CENVAT Credit as per Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Therefore, a letter was addressed by the Range Officer to reverse the amount of CENVAT credit irregularly taken. The assessee vide letter dated 04.02.2006 had stated that the invoices issued by IOCL contained the particulars of invoice number and date of CPCL and based on this information, they have taken credit . Further, they have informed the department that IOCL have registered themselves as dealers of SKO from 26.10.2005 . Further, the assessee reversed the amount of Rs. 5,69,237/- towards CENVAT Credit taken on invoices issued by IOCL for the period from 01.02.2005 to 31....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CCE [2003 (156) ELT 765] and Oudh Sugar Mills Limited Vs. CCE [2006 (199) ELT 628]. Accordingly, the proposal in the show cause notice was confirmed. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner (Appeals)"), who, by order dated 22.05.2009, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Order-in-Original. As against which, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/assessee would submit that the issue regarding the suo-motu credit came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.ICMC Corporation Limited, Chennai, Vs. CES....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y to mean as if the assessee's entitlement to credit is not disputed. On a reading of the Order-in-Original clearly shows that the department disputed the very right of the assessee to avail the credit. Therefore, to that extent, the finding rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) is factually incorrect. 11. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note the following finding given by the Adjudicating Authority in the Order-in-Original dated 25.09.2007, which is quoted below:- "11...................... Further, the said registration No. was changed to a new registration as allotted by SACER and so the department's objection that IOCL are not eligible to pass on Cenvat Credit was also refuted by them. But, it is seen th....