9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. ORDER After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the lower authority denied CENVAT credit of over Rs. 14.7 crores to the appellant under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period September, 2004 to June, 2006. It has also demanded interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Act read with Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter passed an order dated 23-11-2007 accepting payment of additional duty to the extent of over Rs. 31.5 crores and settling the dispute between the assessee and the department. The Settlement Commission also granted immunity to the party from imposition of penalty and prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. According to the present appellant, it is not open to the department to deny ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Act from the Settlement Commission. The counsel submits that the above proceedings "of the Commissioner at Chennai were not appealed against by the department. In the circumstances, the appellant claims prima facie case against the denial of CENVAT credit as also against the connected penalty. 4. We have heard the learned JCDR as well, who has invited our attention to the provisions of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the present application be considered without reference to anything contained in the Settlement Commission's order or in the Chennai Commissioner's order. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that, prima facie, the appellant has made out a good case on the strength of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Chennai in favour of the same company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
