TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 21/2003-04 dated 31-7-2003. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that a major 'fire accident took place in the refinery of the appellant, resulting in loss of records, goods, plant and machinery. The range officers were informed by the appellant. The Revenue's allegation in the show cause notice is that despite various letter written by the Superintendent of Central Excise incharge of the appellant's refinery and the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Divison ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould submit that the entire order is totally incorrect, as the duty/reversal of Cenvat credit has been demanded under the provisions of Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which was rescinded from the statute from 1-7-2000. He draws our attention to the show cause notice. He also brings to our attention the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the Order-in-Original as regards the suppression. It is his submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dutta Metal Industries v. CCE, Mumbai as reported at 2007 (217) E.L.T. 306. 4. The learned SDR would submit that the Adjudicating Authority has passed a detailed order clearly indicating the failure on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orcement [1969 (2) SCC 412], The General Finance Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 (7) SCC 1], Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. UOI [2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)], State of Maharashtra v. Central Provinces of Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. [1997 (1) SCC 643] and other decisions to come to the conclusion that proceedings initiated by show cause notice issued after the substitution of the Cenvat Rules are not saved by Section 38A. The difference between the expressions, repeal, amendment, suppression, or rescinding and substitution have been considered by the Bench in this order. The order in the case of M/s. Sunrise Structurals Engineering Ltd., has been followed in M/s Milton Polyplast v. CCE, Thane, vide order No. A-633-635/W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
