2014 (10) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vind Dixit, DR JUDGEMENT PER: R.K. Singh The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Original No. Commissioner/115/2008 dated 31.12.2008 only to the extent it confirmed demand of Rs. 67,59,593/- against the appellant alongwith interest although no penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act 1994 or under Cenvat Credit Rule was imposed. 2. The appellant contended that they are a compan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... denial of a substantive benefit. They have referred to the following judgements in their support: (1) M/s. BSNL Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2010 (17) STR 209 (Tri.-Del.) where the hon'ble CESTAT permitted such adjustment observing that the rules are not tyrants but servant of law and should not be read in a pedantic manner while the appellant is entitled substantial relief. (2) M/s. Nirma Architects & V .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... several judgments cited above, it has been consistently held that substantial benefit cannot be denied in such cases merely because some aspects of the procedure had not been followed. Indeed, such adjustment has been permitted by the CESTAT in BSNL's own case cited in the earlier para. In the present case there has been no malafide on the part of the appellant as is evident from the fact that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X