9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled Modvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of their final product. The period of dispute in this case is from 1st November 1994 to 28th February 1995. During this period the appellant took Modvat credit on certain items of capital goods. The show cause notice dated 28-4-1995 was issued to them for recovery of allegedly wrongly taken Modvat credit of Rs. 41,82,161/- in respect of certain inadmissible items of capital goods. The original Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 28-5-2001 confirmed the demand to the tune of Rs. 41,81,811/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The appeal was decided by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 217/2010-EX, dated 30th April 2010 [2010 (256) E.L.T. 567 (Tribunal)] by which the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. With regard to the items which were specifically brought within the purview of the term 'capital goods' by Notification No. 11/1995-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 by adding Clauses (d) & (e) to the definition of capital goods, the Tribunal in this order held that since the amendment to Rule 57Q by Notification No. 11/1995-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 was not retrospective, the Modvat credit in respect of these items would not be admissible. The present ROM has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Larger Bench judgment in the case of CCE, Indore v. Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra), that this plea had been made at the time of hearing as is clear from the memorandum of appeal, but the same was not considered at all, and that there is, thus, an error apparent from record, which needs to be rectified in terms of the provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Shri S.R. Meena, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, opposed the rectification application pleading that there is no mistake apparent from records in the Final Order dated 30-4-2010 passed by this Tribunal. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The plea of the appellant is that W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
