9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Act and interest applicable under Section 11AA of the said Act, vide Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2017. The said demand has been upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar, vide Order-in-Appeal dated 28.12.2019 against which the assessee is in appeal before me. 2. The appellant, M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and is engaged in the business of producing and selling of coal at its mines located in the state of Odisha. 'Coal' classifiable under chapter heading 27.01 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff was made exigible to levy of central excise duty for the first time in March 2011. In the course of audit of records of the assessee, it was pointed out that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rger Bench of Tribunal cannot be relied upon and the very basis of the impugned OIA is incorrect and thus liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.,Vadodara-I [2017 (49) S.T.R. 195 (Tri-Ahmd.) and Pushp Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2015 (322) E.L.T. 728 (Tri. - Del.)], wherein it has been held that the LB decision in the case of BDH Industries Ltd [Supra] cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court was not brought to the notice of the Larger Bench while dealing with the matter. Apart from the case on merits as above, he also contested the demand on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oto adjustment of said excess duty payment in the month of March 2013. On perusal of the facts of the entire case, I am of the view that the case of the appellant can be decided on the ground of limitation alone inasmuch as the period in dispute is May 2013 for which the SCN has been issued in February 2017 by invoking extended period of limitation. The fact regarding the adjustment of excess duty was always in the knowledge of the department in view of the reason that adequate disclosures were duly made in the ER-1 returns field with the department. It cannot be said that there was any suppression on the part of the assessee. Further, on perusal of the entire Show Cause Notice, except the mere allegation of suppression to invoke exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
