Order No. 2015/98-WZB/C-I arising from in Appeal No. E/53/91-Bom. Case: Kanoria Chemicals Vs Collector of Customs and C. Ex., Baroda. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Order No. 2015/98-WZB/C-I arising from in Appeal No. E/53/91-Bom |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Shri A.R.S. Kumar, JDR. |
| Judges | Shri K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President and J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Member (J) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35A, 11A |
| Judgement Date | July 20, 1998 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
Order:
K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President, (West Zonal Bench At Mumbai)
-
In this case the appellants availed of Modvat credit. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise after initiating proceedings against the appellants for recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit passed in order ultimately dropping the demand. Against this order of the Assistant Commissioner review application was filed as an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has passed the impugned order whereby he has set aside the Assistant Commissioner''s order dropping the demand and the present appeal has been filed by the assessee appellant. The appellants are not present who have given written submissions wherein they have submitted that the demand is barred by limitation under Rule 57-I and that though they have raised this issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) he has not given any finding thereon on the ground that it was not before the Assistant Commissioner.
-
After hearing Shri A.R.S. Kumar, the Ld. JDR, it is seen that the impugned order has recorded the appellant''s submission resisting the demand on grounds of limitation saying that the two show cause notices issued in this case were time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) however, has observed that the time bar issue was not raised by the appellant and before the Assistant Commissioner and hence it cannot be considered by Commissioner (Appeals) at that stage. The appellants have again reiterated in the appeal before the Tribunal that the demand is time barred and that they had rightly raised point of limitation at the appeal stage which has unjustly not been considered by the Commissioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial