TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. The appellants accepted the final order of the Tribunal dated 30.1.2001, whereby the case was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for limited purpose - The remand was made by the Tribunal vide its final order dated 30.1.2001 for limited purpose and that order has attained finality. It was not open for the appellants to raise altogether a new plea before the Tribunal in the second round of litigation and that too contrary to their own stand taken before the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in rejecting the alternate plea of the appellants. The impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from no infirmity. - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 75 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 6-8-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f invoice issued under Rule 57F (i) (ii) of the Rules. However, according to the department, the Modvat credit was not admissible and as such show cause notices were issued by the jurisdictional authority requiring the appellants to show cause as to why Modvat credit so taken by them amounting to ₹ 1,04,974.70 and ₹ 90,839.66 may not be disallowed in terms of the provisions of Rule 57A read with Rule 57-G of the Rules. By an order in original No.66/97 dated 28.10.1997, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-II, Ghaziabad disallowed the Modvat credit of ₹ 1,04,975/-. By another order in original No.13/98 dated 20.2.1998, the Modvat credit of ₹ 90,839.66 was also disallowed. Against the aforesaid two or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority, however, found that the same process was not being carried out by the appellants and the processing conducted by them for rectification did not amount to manufacture. Consequently, the Adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit vide order in original No.45-46 of 2001 dated 26.11.2001. Aggrieved with this order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghazibad, which was dismissed by order dated 23.5.2003. Aggrieved with this order, the appellants filed an appeal No.E/2172/2003-NB(SM) before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which was dismissed by final order No.A/1421/03-NB dated 17.11.2003, against which the present appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime at this stage, they cannot be permitted to urge for the consideration of their claim under the said Rule. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed. Thus, the findings recorded in the order in original and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals ) that the process being carried out by the appellants on the defective goods for rectification was not the same which were adopted by them in their manufacturing of final products, has been accepted by the appellants before the Tribunal. The appellants accepted the final order of the Tribunal dated 30.1.2001, whereby the case was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
