9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal requiring the deposit of the amount under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act - petitioner was entitled to have this adjustment of his credit amount against his liability under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act - Decided in favour of assesee. - W.P.T. No. 7008 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 19-7-2013 - Prakash Tatia, CJ And Aparesh Kumar Singh,JJ. For the Petitioner: M/s Sumeet Kr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iately complied with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and intimated so to the Appellate Tribunal. In-spite of such communication, which was duly received and which has been duly admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner - appellant's appeal mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount as required under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit Rules, 2004, such credit can be allowed for the purposes mentioned in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and, therefore, no other adjustment is permissible. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the said rule is in consonance with Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected dated 4.9.2012, also appears to be non-speaking order. The Commissioner, Appeal did not even consider the petitioner's contention and the plea that the petitioner has already deposited the amount by way of adjustment so as to discharge his liability under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Be that as it may, since we are of the view that such adjustment is permissible in law, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
