9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity, in his order No. 1/2002, dated 20-2-2002 confirmed the demand of Rs. 41,72,700/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh on the appellants. The appellants approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal in its Final Order No. E/228/03 dated 21-2-03 remanded the matter to the original authority with the following observations. "(c) On a question from the Bench, both sides could not produce any material to indicate what was the total quantity of cement, as per records, if any available, which would have gone in the use of in-house building activity in 1996. This important aspect has to be brought on record to determine what is the total quantity of cement that would have been consumed in the in-house building activity from the total unaccounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the impugned order, the Commissioner has demanded the duty of Rs. 41,72,700/- under proviso to Section 11(A)(1) of the C.E. Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q(1) of the C.E. Rules, 1944. Interest under Section 11AB also has been demanded. The appellants strongly challenged the findings of the adjudicating authority. Hence, they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Learned Counsel, Shri B.V. Kumar appeared for the appellants and learned SDR Shri Ganesh Havanur for the Revenue. 4. Learned Counsel adduced the following points. (i) The Tribunal in the remand order has given specific direction for re-determination of the quantity of the cement used in in-house building activity during 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icates the quantity of cement utilized for the self consumption since the Commissioner did not carry out the mandate given to him by the Hon'ble Tribunal "there is non application of mind". (iv) The Tribunal gave a specific direction to furnish the relied upon documents, namely, Silo dip register for the period April 1992 to February 1997. In spite of three letters written by the appellants to the department the same was not provided. Learned Commissioner observed that the appellants appear to have written their RG 1 on the basis of the dip reading in the Silo dip register. Therefore, there is no justification for the appellants have harped on the issue that the said Register has not been given to them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39 (Tri.-Del.). (f) Padmanabh Dyeing & Finishing Works v. C.C.E., Vadodara -1997 (90) E.L.T. 343 (Tri.-Mum). (viii) The show cause notice was noticed on 16-8-2000 demanding duty for the period from June 1995 to December 1997. The extended period cannot be invoked under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the C.E. Act inasmuch as the unit was regularly visited by the Range staff, Internal Audit and the Revenue Audit parties from time to time. RT 12 returns were being regularly filed. The Commissioner has not discussed these submissions in the impugned order. There is no justification for invocation of the longer period. The SCN is clearly time barred as the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Central Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 777 (T). (b) Orient Cements v. C.C.E., Hyderabad- 1995 (79) E.L.T. 643 (T). (c) Amba Cements & Chemicals v. C.C.E., Allahabad - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 502. (d) Andhra Cements Ltd. v. C.C.E., Guntur - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 364 (T). (e) IOC Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 49. (f) IPCL v. C.C.E. - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 99. 5. Learned DR reiterated the Order-in-Original. 6. We have gone through the records carefully. The de novo order confirms the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
