9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 844 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of CENVAT Credit, education cess, interest and penalty - failure to decide the SCN issued to certain noticees - HELD THAT - It is found that in this case, the Revenue has filed this appeal against the M/s SMS Smelters and the ld.Adjudicating Authority has not granted relief to M/s SMS Smelters. The appeal filed by the Revenue is to challenge the impugned order that the ld.Adjudicating Authority should have taken cognizance of the Noticee Nos.7/7A/7B, 8/8A/8B, 9/9A, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 15 to the show-cause notice, which is not the part of the appeal filed by the Revenue. There are no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Issues:
Revenue's appeal against impugned order, non-decision on certain noticees by Adjudicating Authority. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against an impugned order. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed demands, interest, and penalties on various noticees under the Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Act. The Adjudicating Authority also dropped proposals for certain noticees regarding invoices, realizations, and penalties. The Revenue contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to decide the case against additional noticees not covered in the impugned order. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appeal focused on M/s SMS Smelters and did not include the other noticees. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in challenging the impugned order regarding the non-inclusion of certain noticees. The judgment was pronounced on 08.08.2024. This case highlights the importance of correctly identifying and addressing all relevant noticees in legal proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to confirm demands, interest, and penalties on specific noticees under the Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Act was upheld. However, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not cover the non-inclusion of certain noticees in the impugned order. It underscores the necessity for comprehensive and accurate legal representation to ensure all relevant parties are properly considered and addressed in judicial proceedings.
|
