2020 (1) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7.03.2015. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records in detail. This is the third round of litigation. We lay down hereinbelow the relevant facts of the case with the sequence of events that took place for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal. 3(i). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Pan Masala containing tobacco classifiable under Chapters 21 and 24 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at its factory situated at Jorhat, Assam. The appellant is availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2004-CE dated 21.01.2004, as amended by Notification No. 28/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. the period in dispute in this appeal i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing Cenvat Credit were pending in parallel proceedings which were not considered by the Ld. Commissioner. On said observations, the Tribunal set aside the Order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the Ld. Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the point of admissibility of Cenvat Credit. (v) In the Order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner, against which the assessee is in appeal before us, the Ld. Commissioner has noted in para 5.2 of the order, that the assessee has violated the condition of subject exemption notification as already decided in previous Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2008 which has attained finality. Further, in para 5.3, he has noted that the charges framed against the assessee for wrong uti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. The Ld. Commissioner has duly noted the fact that said payment of duty has been affected both by challan payment and CENVAT Credit utilization. However, he rejected the appeal with the observation that credit cannot be further allowed, which in our view is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the assessee has sought relief for the amount which has been paid twice. We also note that this Tribunal vide Order dated 17.03.2015 had directed to decide the eligibility of credit utilized by assessee, which already stood decided in favour of assessee by the Ld. Addl. Commissioner vide Order no. 02/Addl./COMMR/ADJ/CE/DIB/09 dated 30.01.2009 as has been noted in the impugned order. This material fact was not before this Tribunal earlier. The Ld. Commis....