TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufactures Steel Blooms, Billets, Slabs, TMT Bars, Plates, Angles, Joists, Channels, etc. which fall under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, it availed MODVAT credit on the inputs and capital goods which it procured under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Of the goods on which it had availed Capital Goods MODVAT credit were also parts of bins supplied by M/s. Simplex Engineering and Foundry Works [Simplex], which Simplex had classified under Tariff Sub-Heading 8474 90. 3. Officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence investigated the matter and found that the goods were mis-classified by Simplex under Tariff Sub-Heading 8474 90 and they were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eek its revival after obtaining the approval of COD. On 8.9.2015, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the appeal on the ground that clearance from COD is no longer required after the judgment of the Supreme Court in ECIL case. The appeal was restored on 31.3.2016 but the appellant was allowed to pursue only the challenge to the penalty under Rule 57U(6). By order dated 6.6.2016, the penalty on the appellant was set aside but not the denial of MODVAT. 8. The appellant appealed to the Chhattisgarh High Court and by Order dated 27.3.2017, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed the CESTAT to decide on merits against denial of MODVAT credit. 9. After considering the submissions of the appellant, by Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rule 57U which provided for a limitation of only 6 months, 57AH provided for a limitation of one year. Since half of the total credit taken fell within one year- the limitation under Rule 57AH he confirmed denial of MODVAT credit of Rs. 54,44,083/-. He relied on the following decisions to hold that if a wrong Rule is quoted in the SCN, it does not vitiate the demand: a) M/s. Petlad Bulkhidas Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India. [2000(126) ELT 269 (Guj)] b) J K Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India. [1978 (2) ELT J 355 (SC)] 12. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: (a) Confirmation of demand under new Rule 57AH is beyond the scope of the SCN, the earlier OIO dated 28.11.2005 as well as the remand order of this Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule 57U had not existed at the relevant time and therefore, he would be examining the case under Rule 57AH. It is not as if the Commissioner was expediting the matter and in the process was unable to give an opportunity to the appellant. The Final order remanding the matter was passed by this Tribunal on 31.5.2017 and the appellant gave written submissions on 8.3.2021. Thereafter, the Commissioner fixed a personal hearing after two years on 26.4.2023 and passed the impugned order after another two months on 7.6.2023. There is no conceivable reason for the Commissioner who has taken so long to pass the order to have not even informed the appellant that he would be examining the matter under a new Rule not cited in the SCN and not discussed....