9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Revenue) against the order dated 23.5.2000 bearing No. A/930/00-NB(SM) passed by Central Excise Tribunal (for short hereinafter called for brevity - the Tribunal ) in appeal No. E/633/2000-NB (S) praying for referring to this Court the questions of law proposed in the application as questions of law arising out of the aforementioned order of the Tribunal. 2. By impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's (revenue's) appeal and confirmed the order passed by the commissioner of appeal dated 6.9.99. 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this application is whether any referable question of law arises out of the impugned order for being answered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Rules which are not been followed. The impugned order is not sustainable." 4. Head learned JDR and perused the appeal papers. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the Central excise Rules a manufacturer as to file a declaration for availing the benefit of credit in respect of capital goods and in the declaration he has to declare the description of the capital goods and also the heading of Central Excise Tariff under which the goods are classifiable. The respondents has not filed a proper declaration. Therefore, the same was rejected. The respondents in their Cross-examination submits that before passing the adjudicating order no show cause notice was issued for disallowing the credits. 6. In the impugned order the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) that in such circumstances,, the adjudicating authority should have followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 57(Q) of the Rules by giving to an assessee a show cause notice and then appropriate order should have been passed. In other words, it was held by the Commissioner of Appeals that since no show cause notice was served on the assessee before denying them the benefit of claiming modavat credit on their capital goods, and hence such order of adjudicating authority is bad in law and liable to be set aside. It was accordingly set aside. It is this order, which was impugned by the Commissioner of Central Excise in appeal before the Tribunal and the same was upheld. 7. In our opinion, on these undisputed facts, we do not fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
