9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , entire legal pleading and factual evidence of the Appellant should not go out of his consideration - So also the gravity of the default, if any, should receive his proper consideration and also reasonable cause, if any, should be examined before levy of penalty - Concession in respect of penalty if any permissible should be examined and allowed in accordance with law - send the matter back to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order. 2. According to Shri Batra, the liability as aforesaid was discharged under bonafide belief that Cenvat credit of Rs.1,09,975/- was admissible to GTA service provider Appellant. However, when the Appellant came to understand that the Notification No. 1/2006 dated 1.3.2006 does not permit such credit, the Appellant paid the amount in question i.e. Rs.1,09,975/- in terms of a detailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty. Had the authority heard the Appellant thoroughly and applied law properly, there would not have arisen an arbitrary adjudication. 4. Further submission of Shri Batra is that the Appellant was not a defaulter under law and there was no knowable breach made. Of course, the Appellant realised its mistake of law after two years of adjustment through Cenvat credit. The Appellant came forward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.12.2007, the Authority had ample time to examine the record. But the authority passed the order without grant of reasonable opportunity as that is revealed from para 14.2 of the order. The Appellant had thus no opportunity to explain. It may be so possible that upon explaining entire fact with evidence the authority may come to a proper conclusion. 8. We make it clear that once the notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
