TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that of the individual arise from order-in-original no. 3/Central Excise/2006 dated 30th January 2006 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I in which disallowance of credit amounting to Rs. 59,51,011/- arising from customer rejections that were not returned, that were returned and scrapped without reversing CENVAT credit and availment of credit against self-generated invoices without actual receipt of goods and recovery of Rs. 66,76,689/- on account of scrap generated at premises of jobworker and short-payment of duty by mis-classification of finished goods, another appeal, arising from order-in-appeal no. P-I/19/2007 dated 27th February 2007 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, pertains to rejection of claim for refund of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....machining and that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had, in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd [2008 (223) ELT 347 (Bom)] settled the dispute in favour of the assessee. On the classification dispute, it is his contention that the decision of the Tribunal in Anil Forgings v. Commissioner [1998 (103) ELT 252] and in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Drop Forging (India) [1999 (108) ELT 174 (Tribunal)] had held that heading no 7308 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was not applicable to forging into 'rough shape pieces' and that this corresponded to heading no. 7326 in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 after alignment with the Harmonised System of Nomenclature effected from 1st March 1988. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the goods are 'unmachined/rough forgings' and not 'other articles of iron or steel' under heading no. 7326 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which, prior to 1^st March 2008, corresponded to heading no. 7308 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. We find that chapter 73 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is intended to cover 'articles' which, by definition, have attained their final form and ready for use as such. It is also the residual category within the chapter pertaining to 'articles' that are is not classifiable under any other heading in the Schedule. It would also appear from the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has not examined the merit of classification and, instead, relied upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dual-appellant was proceeded with despite absence of evidence of the notice having been served on him. 7. On the credit of Rs. 29,64,973/-, taken between 1st April 2001 and 22nd September 2004 against invoices covering receipt of goods from M/s LML, Kanpur and from their unit at Faridabad, it is the contention of Learned Counsel that errors in recording of receipts to adjust for goods that, though dispatched, were returned or goods that were never dispatched had been brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority along with relevant documentation to establish that there was no wrongdoing on their part; these had not been addressed in the impugned order. On refund claim of Rs. 35,20,576/- pertaining to duty payment, reflected in 427 ....