9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (2009 (5) TMI 48 (Tri) ) without any reference to the facts of the case - It is pleaded that even if the customer s premises is treated as the place of removal, there is no finding by CCE(Appeals) that the sales were on FOR destination basis – Held that:- Neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the adjudicating Joint Commissioner have looked into this aspect of the case by referring to the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice for denial of credit to the tune of Rs.31,61,755/- and imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 21.01.2008 by which the cenvat credit demand of Rs. 31,61,755/- was confirmed alongwith interest and besides this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on the respondent. 2. On appeal against this order, the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the same address which has received undelivered. Since the notice was put in the postal service, there was a presumption of service of the notice. As no one has turned up, today, we are constrained to hear the appeal ex-parte against the respondent. 4. Heard Sh. R.K. Verma, ld. AR for the department who pleaded that the impugned order has been passed based on the judgement of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er have looked into this aspect of the case by referring to the facts. Therefore, the impugned order as well as order-in-original are not sustainable in law. Thus, ld. DR requests for setting aside the impugned order and remand of the case to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication after taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 5. We have gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
