2014 (8) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p;    (i) Unspecified documents such as proforma invoice, money receipt, the documents raised in the name of Head Office and the documents not containing particulars like Registration number;       (ii) Service tax paid on Stevedoring activity and Warfage activity services; and      (iii) Service tax paid on services used for generation of electricity in the co-generation plant and has imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2014 in addition to fastening the interest liability under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. It is seen from the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has not recorded any reason to deny the CENVAT credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p;       8. The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court in the matter of MIL India Ltd. (supra) are in the nature of passing remarks on the scope of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) hearing an appeal under Section 35A(3). Therefore, aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court in our view cannot take precedence over the finding of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Umesh Dhaiamode (supra) based on the analysis of the provision itself.           9. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Medico Labs reported in 2004 (173) E.L.T. 117 (Guj.) has also held that Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have power of remand even after th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Labs - 2004 (173) ELT 117 (Guj.) dismissed the Revenue's appeal. So, the case laws relied upon by the learned AR has no relevance to the facts of the present case. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter for re-examination of the evidences in respect of registration certificate and other issues. Therefore, after considering the merits of the case as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. (supra), I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgemen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X