9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal in case of Raj Hans Metals (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. A/2438 of 2007-WZB/Ahd, dated 7-9-2007] (Trib. - Ahd.)? 2. Whether the finding of the Hon'ble Tribunal that this is a case of 'issue of interpretation of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004', which is contrary to the provisions of rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is legal and proper ?" 2. On 31-3-2010 while issuing notice, this Court had passed an order in the following terms : "Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant. Considering the submissions of respondent-assessee recorded by the Tribunal and the final finding recorded by the Tribunal, prima facie, it appears that the Tribunal has committed an error in issuing direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the respondent contested the demand only on the point of limitation. The Tribunal vide the impugned order held that the demand was hit by the bar of limitation. The Tribunal also held that since the issue concerned the bona fide interpretation of the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in relation to the availability of credit of service tax paid, penalty imposed by the respondent was not called for. The Tribunal, accordingly, set aside the order impugned before it and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the demand within the period of limitation. 8. Mr.R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2007. As such, major part of the demand would be hit bar of limitation. 3. We agree with the learned advocate that the issue being a bona fide interpretation of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in relation to availability of credit of service tax paid and there being no mala fide on the part of the appellant, and by following the observations made in the above decisions in the case of Rajhans Metals, the benefit of time bar has to be extended. For the same reason, penalty imposed upon the appellant is not called for. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for quantification of the demands within the period of limitation. 4. Appeal as also stay petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order, the Tribunal had taken up the matter for hearing as the learned advocate has contested the demand only on the ground of limitation. However, after recording thus, the Tribunal also proceeded to hear the learned advocate for the respondent on the question of penalty and without recording any submissions made on behalf of the revenue and apparently without affording any opportunity of hearing on that count, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty also. 12. It is settled legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that it is not sufficient in a judgment to give conclusions alone but it is necessary to give reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. In the present case, as is apparent from a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
