TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty available as per as per para 2A of said notification. The appellant had cleared their finished goods i.e. 550.9MT of TMT Bars without payment of Central Excise duty under the guise of waste coal during the month of July 2008 by showing the said clearance as waste coal in their invoice attracting nil rate of duty and thereby evade the payment of central Excise duty. They admitted this fact during investigation and made payment of Rs. 29, 00,504/- on 06.08.2008 against the amount of duty payable on the said clandestine clearance made by them. Since the appellant was availing benefit of Notification No 39/2001- CE they availed the re- credit of the duty of Rs. 29,00,504/- paid on the said clandestine clearances. Show Cause Notice dated 08.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submits that this is not a case of Clandestine Removal but it is only a case of oversight mistake in preparation of invoice. He further submits that the finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in as much as it was alleged that there is suppression of fact being a clandestine removal case is under dispute and yet to finalize in an appeal pending with this CESTAT under appeal no E/ 1858/2010. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority should not have concluded that there is suppression of fact in making clandestine removal and consequently, the re- credit of the duty paid is not available to the appellant. He further submits that the Show cause notice is time barred as the appellant has been filing ER-1 return. 2.1 He submits that the Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 30.03.2021 as the appellant had availed SVLDR Scheme. He submits that with this proceeding of demand matter though the appellant have got their case settled under SVLDR but the OIA attained finality and the charges of suppression of fact also attained finality. In this fact the appellant is not entitled for re- credit of amount paid on clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, the impugned order is sustainable. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. AAFLOAT TEXTILES (I) P.LTD. - 2009 (235) ELT 587 (SC). 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant at the ti....