TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96 and, therefore, the proceedings have travelled clearly beyond the scope of allegations made in the SCN which cannot be legally sustained. The main reason that has been assigned to disallow the credit in the impugned order is that the Appellant has availed the aforesaid SSI exemption which was never alleged in the SCN. The Department was aware of the fact with regard to the availment of above exemption since that has been duly disclosed in the quarterly excise returns, though belatedly filed, and hence the same was within the knowledge of the Department at the time of issuance of the SCN. It is a settled legal position that when the assessee was not put to notice with regard to the reasons basis which the demand is being sought to be m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit of Rs.17,56,079.43 and has also upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs.15,00,000/-. 2. The present case pertaining to the period 1994-95 is in its third round of litigation before this Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant obtained registration with Central Excise Department on 17.06.1994 and filed a declaration on 20.12.1994 under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 indicating their intention to avail transitional Modvat credit benefit. However, they submitted central excise quarterly return for Financial Year 1994-95 belatedly on 28.08.1995 which was alleged to be in contravention of Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The required classification list as per rules was also submitted belatedl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order dated 13.02.2013 extended the time limit for making the pre-deposit. Vide the said Order, the Hon ble High Court directed to deposit the entire dues within the stipulated timeline. It was also directed that subsequent to the said deposit, the matter will be decided by Commissioner (Appeals) afresh. The assessee accordingly deposited the amount in compliance with the order of the Hon ble High Court. 6. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon ble High Court, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Kolkata decided the Appeal afresh. Vide Order-in-Appeal dated 29.07.2015, the appeal came to be rejected by upholding the disallowance of Modvat credit. Thereafter, in the Appeal preferred by assessee before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s eligible to avail the transitional Modvat Credit and whether the proceedings initiated vide the impugned SCN is legal. 11. On perusal of the impugned adjudication Order dated 20.08.2018, I find that the Ld. Joint Commissioner has observed that the assessee has suppressed the fact of availing the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE (supra) by not paying the duty on finished goods during the period in dispute i.e. 1994-95, which allegation was not made in the SCN dated 02.04.1996 and, therefore, the proceedings have travelled clearly beyond the scope of allegations made in the SCN which cannot be legally sustained. The main reason that has been assigned to disallow the credit in the impugned order is that the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
