TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ident) [Order per]- The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Satranji, cleared the goods at nil rate of duty under CET sub-heading 3922.90 upto the year 1987 and thereafter they classified the goods under CET sub-heading 3924.90 and claimed exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification 132/86-CE dated 1.3.1986. From 15.4.1987 onwards they started paying duty on the goods under CET sub-heading 4601.00. On 9.7.1987 a show cause notice was issued to them proposing to classify the goods under CET sub-heading 4601.00 and proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs.1,70,624.28 for the period 1.1.1987 to 15.4.1987. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules; the claim was rejected, on the ground that the inputs have been wrongly classified, by order dated 23.8.1989 passed by the Assistant Collector; this order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.3.1991; the impugned order was set aside by the Tribunal vide its order No. 668/97/WRB dated 11.2.1997 passed in appeal No. E/328/91, holding that substantive right to modvat credit cannot be denied for minor technical infirmities and directing consequential relief. Consequent upon the Tribunal's order, the assessee wrote to the range Superintendent on 18.3.1997 informing him that they are entitled to modvat credit as per the Tribunal's order dated 11.2.1997. On 20.7.2004, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the period 1.1.1987 to 15.4.1987. 5. In respect of appeal No. E/3378/05, I agree with the appellants that there is not time limit prescribed for claiming relief arising as a consequence of favourable orders of appellate authorities, as held by the Tribunal in the case of M.P. Iron Steel Co. vs. CCE, Indore 2007 (207) ELT 99, Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2007 (213) ELT 577 and Indian Acrylic Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana 2007 (213) ELT 279. The appellants' prayer for adjustment of demand of Rs.1,27,699/- (subject matter of appeal No. E/3377/05) against their claim for transitional credit of Rs.2,38,738.88 (subject matter of the second appeal) and cash refund of balance amount of Rs.1,11,038.75 on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
