TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versed it when the Revenue brought it to the notice of the same. The confirmation of the demand for reversal of cenvat credit is only to the extent falling within normal time period - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - TAXC No. 6 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2018 - Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra And Hon'ble Shri Ram Prasanna Sharma , JJ For the Appellant : Shri Sandeep Dubey Shri Alok Chandra Rishi, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate. JUDGMENT The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is to the final order dated 31.5.2017 passed by the Custom, Excise and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter 73 of the first schedule of the Act, 1985 for the purpose of availing the said credit. 3. Based on these facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and M/s Simplex as well on 3.9.2002 (Annexure-A/2) raising demand from M/s Simplex of the duty amounting to ₹ 15,68,462/- with appropriate rate of interest and penalty on the said amount of duty. For the appellant Steel Authority of India, Bhilai Steel Plant, demand of modvat credit amounting to ₹ 1,08,88,166/-, wrongly availed by it together with interest and penalty at the appropriate rate on the said amount, was raised. By order in original dated 28.11.2005, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur, recorded a finding that the subject items are classifiable u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rma, learned counsel for the Revenue would support the impugned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the issue as to whether the subject item would fall under heading 8474.90 or 7308 is essentially a question of fact. Interestingly, during the same period, the appellant has obtained supply of the same item i.e. 'Bins' from another supplier M/s Hindustan Steel, who had, from the very beginning, classified the good under heading 7308, as is reflected in para-27 of the order in original dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner. 8. In the case at hand also, M/s Simplex had gone in appeal and argued only on that part of the demand, which is barred by limitation, thus, in a way, conceding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
