TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in thickness, which was not suitable for use in the manufacture of automobile axle. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Upon proper investigation, since the officers of DGCEI came to know about the actual requirement of thickness of H.R. Coils in manufacture of final product and thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the appellant within the normal period prescribed under erstwhile Rule 57(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, I am of the considered view that the adjudged demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation can stand for judicial scrutiny. Imposition of penalty on Shri Uday kumar Vinzanekar, Director of the assessee Company - HELD THAT:- The original authority has recorded the findings that Revenue had not made the said Director as respondent during the course of initial show cause proceedings and, accordingly the Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2004 had not specifically recorded any findings with regard to imposition of penalty on such Director - Further, in the present appeal petition, the Revenue has also not made such Director as party to the appeal. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of 154 invoices and denied Modvat benefit on remaining 22 invoices. Feeling aggrieved with the adjudication order dated 25.01.2002, the assessee-appellant had filed appeal before the Tribunal. Revenue has also assailed the impugned order before the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant should not be eligible for the Modvat benefit in respect of the entire 176 invoices, based on which Modvat credit was availed by it. The appeal filed by the assessee-appellant was disposed of by the Tribunal vide final order No. A/127/WZB/2004/C-II dated 05.04.2004, in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for limited purpose of determining of fact, whether extended period of limitation can be invoked under the circumstances of the present case. Appeal filed by Revenue was also disposed of by Tribunal vide final order No. A/24/WZB/05/CI dated 31.12.2004 in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a decision in line with the earlier order dated 05.04.2004, referred supra. Pursuant to the remand direction of the Tribunal, learned Commissioner of Central Excise took up denovo adjudication proceedings and passed the present impugned order dated 21.04.2006, in disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the facts regarding the use of M.S Sheets for manufacture of Front Axle was known to the department much before issuance of show-cause notice, the same should have been issued within the normal period of limitation. Accordingly, he submits that since the show-cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period, same is barred by limitation of time and adjudged demand confirmed based on the proposals made therein is not sustainable. To support such stand, the learned Consultant has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kothari Products 2002 (148) ELT 1056 (Tri. Del.), Silence Auto 2014 (307) ELT 339 (Tri. Del), KLJ Polymers Chemicals Ltd. 2008 (231) ELT 57 (Tri. Ahmd.) and EM ESS Electricals 2003 (159) ELT 730 (Tri. Del). He also relied on the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prayagraj Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd.. 2013 (290) ELT 61 (Guj.) to state that since availment of credit was not due to fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement etc, the extended period should not be invoked for confirmation of the adjudged demand. 6. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 7. In the initial ground of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable in the case records. Invoice No. 449 dated 19.11.1998 issued by Jaydev Steels bears the reference of the invoice issued by the manufacturer M/s Uttam Steel Ltd., classifying H.R. Coil under Tariff Heading 7208.39. Strips have been classified under Tariff Entry 7208.31, providing the description as exceeding 5mm in thickness . Other category ofstripis classified under 7208.39. On perusal of both the tariff entries i.e. 7208.31 and 7208.39, it reveals that the goods under the later heading only covers the strips of not exceeding 5 mm. Thus, it is evident from the invoice dated 19.11.1998 that the appellant had purchased H.R. Coils of below 5 mm in thickness, which was not suitable for use in the manufacture of automobile axle. Since the original authority has recorded specific findings in denying the Modvat benefit to the appellant and more specifically, proceeded for the issue of limitation on the basis of the observation of the Tribunal recorded vide order dated 05.04.2004, I am of the view that I should confine myself to address the issue, whether the proceedings initiated by the department are barred by limitation of time or not. 9. Requirement of 6 mm size of H.R. co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
