9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.78-79/CE/APPL/NOIDA/08 dated 30.05.2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants procured moulds and dies for use in or in relation to manufacture of their final products and cleared the same to their vendors without payment of duty. Therefore, they are issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoked proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 11A and also invoked provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules and called upon appellant to show cause, as to why duty amounting to Rs. 43,46,542/- should not be confirmed and already paid should not be appropriated. There was also a proposal for importation of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2008. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rival contentions and on perusal of records, we find that the said Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that 'when an assessee on his own ascertainment pays the amount of duty and interest thereon before issue of show cause notice then show cause notice demanding the said amount cannot be served on the assessee'. The said provision as provided under explanation-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43,46,542/- is tenable in spite of provisions of Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. We therefore find that the show cause notice dated 23.08.2007 is not tenable in law. We therefore, set aside the impugned Order-in-Original & Order-in-Appeal and allow the appeal. The appellant shall be entitled for consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. (Dictated in Court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
