TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter remanded by this Tribunal vide order No. A/23/11/EB/C-II dated 03.01.2011 stating as follows:- "3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we have found serious infirmities in the impugned order, The show cause notices raised serious allegations against the assessee and proposed to deny the benefit of Notification No.30/04-CE ibid to them. One of the show-cause notices raised the serious allegation of "suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, against the party, and invoked the extended period of limitation for recovery of duty from them. All the show-cause notices sought to recover interest on duty also. There were also proposals for imposition of penalties on the noticee. All the proposals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this scenario, according to the ld. counsel, the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case. We find that this case of the appellant was not examined by the Id. Commissioner (Appeals). This is the second reason why we have decided to remand the case." 2.1 The appellant was issued three show cause notices as detailed in the table below:- S. No. SCN No. & Date Period Amount (in Rs.) 1 V(11A)Adj21-2 COMMR/RGD/06-07 dated 22.06.2006. October 2004 to October 2005 44,47,765/- 2 V/Adj(SCN)15-122/RGD/06 dated 04.12.2006 November 2005 to June 2006 22,66,346/- 3 V/Adj(SCN)15-25/RGD/07-08 dated 31.07.2007 July 2006 to December 2006 13,80,977/- 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly from 06.08.2005 they reversed the cenvat credit on furnace oil, also on consignment basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held undoubtedly that from 06.08.2005 onwards the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions of the exemption notification and hence the demands raised for the period from 06.08.2005 onwards cannot be sustained. Therefore the dispute in this case is limited for the period prior to 06.08.2005. 3.1 We have heard Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the appellant and Ms. Anuradha Parab, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative, for the Revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant, learned counsel submits that: • The issue in the present case is squarely covered by a number of decisions of the Courts/T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants are engaged in manufacture of cotton fabrics, man-made fabrics and knitted fabrics etc. During the relevant period, they were enjoying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and No. 30/2004-C.E., both dated 9-7-2004. Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. provides for concessional rate of duty subject to availment of credit, whereas the Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. provides for concessional rate of duty subject to the condition that no credit has been taken under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 2. The appellants had originally availed the MODVAT Credit in respect of entire input used in the manufacture of final product cleared under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. as also Notification No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is subsequent to the clearance of the goods, the same cannot be accepted. 5. We find that the issue before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Chandrapur Magnet (Wires) Pvt. Ltd. was not about reversal being prior or after the removal. The dispute before the Hon'ble Apex Court was as if such reversal would amount to as if no credit was availed. It was under these circumstances that the expression "reversal by the appellant before clearance of the product" was used. We further note that the Tribunal in case of M/s. Ashima Dyecot Ltd. has held that the reversal even at the time of disposal of the appeal before Tribunal, would amount to satisfaction of the condition. The said decision of the Tribunal stand confirmed by Hon'bl....