TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final, before that the claim of refund could not have been raised by the assessee. Therefore, during the pendency of his claim for Modvat allowance itself was under consideration wherein the authority had jurisdiction to pass appropriate order with respect to the entitlement of Modvat benefit to the assessee, then in that situation, the assessee could not have moved any application for refund of the said amount which would have been in air. The question of bar of limitation in fact cannot apply and, therefore, there arises no question of law in this appeal - appeal of Revenue is dismissed. - Tax Appeal No. 13 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2013 - MRS. JAYA ROY J. AND PRAKASH TATIA JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculating the Modvat credit on the inputs under the head Work in Progress ? 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Samtel India Ltd. Vrs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.), no question of law arises in this appeal in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already answered the question raised by the appellant and particularly, with respect to the interpretation of sub-rule 4A which is identical to sub-rule 17 of rule 57 F and which has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in earlier judgment delivered in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. Vrs. Union Of India reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee were audited by the Cost Accountant who, in his report dated 29.03.1998, stated that claim for Rs. 4,05,75,212.22 was inadmissible in different categories. On the basis of the report of Cost Accountant, a show cause notice dated 31.03.1998 was issued proposing to disallow credit of Rs. 4,05,75,212.22 under the provisions of Rule 57(ii) and for imposing penalty under Rule 173Q(1) (bb) and Rule 57 I (4). The said order of the Commissioner was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter vide order dated 31.12.2004 by a detailed order. In para 3.1 of the order dated 31.12.2004, the Tribunal specifically directed as under:- Since the matter requires to be remitted back, in view of the findings for re-d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit for payment of duty and where it is not possible for any reason, by refund to the manufacturer and this point has been considered in detail. Thereafter, the objection with respect to the bar of limitation has also been considered by the Tribunal in detail in para 12 and 13. The Tribunal in para 15 also observed that the inputs lying in stock, inputs contained in work in process lying in stock and inputs contained in forgings and springs have not been considered which has been considered by the Tribunal on the basis of material available before the Tribunal and passed this order. 8. We are of the considered opinion that in fact the issue sought to be raised by the appellant-Revenue is already answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
