9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the revenue and the assessee - order of the Tribunal is not sustainable - Tribunal could not have extended the stay order without recording the reasons and noticing the circumstances etc - The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the application filed by the assessee and to pass orders on merits and on relevant consideration as is indicated in the 2nd proviso to Section 35C(2A) - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE –vs- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [2010 (8) TMI 212 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of Revenue. - CEA No. 31/2011 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2013 - D V Shylendra Kumar And B S Indrakala, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri. Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Likewise the Cenvat Credit of Rs.30,88,435/- wrongly utilized for payment of duty was disallowed and the demand raised for this amount, was required to be recovered under Section 11 of the Act read with Section 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short the Rules) and Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and the interest was also demanded and a further penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed under Rule 25 of the Rules for contravention of Rule 8 of the Rules and in terms of the penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for the contravention of the proviso to Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. The respondent/assessee aggrieved by this order had preferred an appeal to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng justification, the present appeal by the revenue. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Y. Hariprasad, learned Standing Counsel submits that while it is true that the Supreme Court held to extend the stay but that cannot be without assigning reasons and without looking into the merits and it cannot be automatic just cause even for waiver of pre-deposit that had been granted earlier. Submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of KUMAR COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD. vs- COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-1 - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 438 had been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances and noticing that the Tribunal had simply extended in the sense it is not a speaking order, set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is answered in the negative and it is held that the Tribunal could not have extended the stay order without recording the reasons and noticing the circumstances etc. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the application filed by the assessee and to pass orders on merits and on relevant consideration as is indicated in the 2nd proviso to Section 35C(2A) and as indicated by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation referred to above. 11. The Tribunal shall pass orders after issuing notice to the parties and to pass orders on the miscellaneous application within three months from today unless the appeal itself is disposed of. In the inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
