9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Ananda Sen, Advocate for the Appellant Assisted by Smt. Ankita Mitra, Advocate Shri K. Chowdhury, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER [Per Shri Ashok Jindal] These appeals are relisted on the ground that while passing the earlier Order, this Tribunal held that on merit the appellants have no case, but at the time of passing the said Order, this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Nirlon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2015 (320)) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.)], the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. ii) Appeal No. E/114/2012 wherein it is their contention that in the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken a view that there is a violation of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules by the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties and considered their submissions. Appeal No. E/103/2011: 5. We find that it is correct that whatever duty was paid by Unit-II is entitled as CENVAT Credit by Unit-I of the appellant themselves. In these circumstances, it is a situation of revenue neutrality. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Nirlon Ltd. (supra), we hold that the extended period of limitation is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of limitation is not invokable in this case also. Consequently, the demand of interest and penalty against the appellant are not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order qua demanding interest and penalty from the appellant is set aside.
7. In the result, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms, with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
