TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Howrah Commissionerate, Howrah confirming the purported demands of Central Excise duty totaling to Rs. 4,73,80,673/- for August, 1997 to July, 1998 in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") read with the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") along with interest thereon under Section 11AA of the Act and penalties totaling to Rs. 6,23,80,673/- under various provisions of the Act read with the Rules. The said impugned order also confirmed imposition of further penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the appellant under the proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules read with Rule 96ZP(3) thereof. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 3A of the Act, being covered by the Compounded Levy Sechme, which the Appellant had failed to do and, accordingly, the Appellant had incorrectly availed the benefit of CENVAT/MODVAT. It was further alleged that in view of the said defaults, the Appellant had short paid duty of Rs. 5,24,168/- and irregularly availed CENVAT/MODVAT of Rs. 12,43,545/- and Rs. 4,56,121,960/-, totaling to Rs. 4,68,56,505/- all of which were liable to be recovered with interest and various penalties through invocation of extended period of limitation. Hence the present Appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Department had initiated a separate proceeding against the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll as the assessee filed Appeals and a Cross Objection respectively before this Tribunal. The said Appeals and the Cross Objection have been disposed of vide Final Order dated 27.02.2023. Whereby, inter alia, the purported de novo adjudication order has been affirmed. It is the submission of the Ld.Advocate that the instant Appeal is covered by the Tribunal's order dated 27.02.2023 in the Appellant's own case. While upholding the de novo Order-in-Original dated 16.03.2010 in the Appellant's case, the Tribunal held that the Appellant had correctly paid duty for the relevant period under Section 3 of the Act. The basis of the said findings is that the Commissioner's permission granted under the Department's letters dated 23.09.1997 and 20.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act were not in conformity with the legal provisions and that the same were merely executive orders which were not appealable. It is his submission that such findings are completely illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the Commissioner failed to appreciate the clarifications/;orders had been issued after due application of mind by the authority concerned, before whom all the necessary details relating to the Appellant's production had been placed and that an officer of the same rank as that of the Commissioner of Central Excise had no power to review the decision taken by his predecessor in office. Even though the clarifications/orders were to be understood as non-appealable then also the department was duty-bound to challenge the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08.1997 and Notification No. 34/97-CE(NT) dated 01.08.1997 imposing restriction on MODVAT availment in respect of goods liable to duty under Section 3A of the Act had no application in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly there remains no justification for supporting the purported conclusions drawn by the Commissioner that the Appellant should have paid duty under Section 3 of the Act and that it had irregularly availed MODAT/CENVAT on the inputs used in or in relation to the notified final products. 7. We further find that there is no material on record to substantiate the charge warranting invocation of extended period of limitation. In any event whatsoever the issue of duty paid under Section 3 of the Act has been settl....