TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for both the show cause notices is the same - the later SCN i.e. 13.01.2006 was not sustainable since the said SCN dated 13.01.2006 was issued by invocation of proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 11A of CEA, 1944, in view of the ruling by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scrap cleared by the appellant through invoices on which it was stated that it was duty paid used scrap. The issue was adjudicated by confirming the demand through Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2008. Party preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the said Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2008. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2008 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued on 13.01.2006 to the same assessee covering period from 03.08.2001 to 20.11.2002 whereas show cause notice dated 06.07.2005 also covered the period, covered by present show cause notice. He has further submitted that after the issue of show cause notice dated 06.07.2005 Revenue did not have authority to invoke proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urce of information for both the show cause notices is the same. Therefore, we find that the later show cause notice i.e. 13.01.2006 was not sustainable since the said show cause notice dated 13.01.2006 was issued by invocation of proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, in view of the ruling by Hon ble Supreme Court in above stated case of Nizam Sugar Factory. We, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
