9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the order DATED 25.2.2009 of the original authority was taken for revision by the Commissioner who passed order dated 22.12.2009 enhancing penalty imposed under Section 76 and against the said order, the assessee has filed appeal No. ST/849/2010 which is pending before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the connected appeal was also called for and taken up for disposal. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief are, that the appellant is a manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides falling under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing CENVAT credit facility for discharging Central Excise duty on the final products manufactured and cleared by them. As a recipient of GTA serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aryana in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh Vs. M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. [2010-TIOL-868-HC-P&H-ST] submits that the question of law as to whether a recipient of GTA service, as a deemed service provider, can utilize the CENVAT credit on inputs/input services/capital goods taken by them, has been decided in favour of the assessee. 6.1 I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Any manufacturer or a service provider takes credit of excise duty paid on inputs/capital goods, customs duty in the form of CVD paid on inputs/capital goods and service tax paid on input service, and maintains a common account. The CENVAT Credit Rules do not envisage separate accounts of CENVAT c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side the order of the original authority stands noted by the Commissioner in the impugned order in Paragraph relating to submissions during the personal hearing. The Commissioner has chosen to exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of an order which did not exist! On this ground alone, this order cannot be sustained. Further, the department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) also stands rejected. 7. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31.8.2009 is upheld and the order of the Commissioner dated 22.12.2009 is set aside. Thus, the appeal by the party is allowed and the appeal by the department is rejected. Cross objection No. 82/2010 relating to appeal No. ST/972/2009 fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
