9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the present case, in light of the case laws (2014 (1) TMI 169 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and [2012 (7) TMI 679 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. We also find that Ld. Commr. has not recorded his findings on the issue raised by the Revenue whether the credit could be allowed on the duty paid materials used in the manufacture of impugned exempt goods. Revenue has further contended that while allowing the said credit, the Ld. Commr. has traversed beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Both sides agreed that these issues to be addressed afresh by the adjudicating authority. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, we are of the opinion that order passed by the Ld. Commissioner requires to be set aside - Matter remanded back - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s meant for manufacture of dutiable and exempt finished products or in providing output service had been maintained they were required to pay under Rule 6 (3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, an amount equal to 10% of the total price, excluding Sales Tax and other taxes paid on such goods of the exempted final products. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued. During the adjudication proceedings, the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 6,35,20,268.00, imposed equal amount of penalty and ordered for interest also. Being aggrieved, the assesse has filed appeal to this Forum. In the present case, the Revenue has also filed an appeal against the above order of the Commissioner against allowing the credit of duty paid on free issue mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal's order in case of M/s. Voltmap (Supra) is dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat as reported in 2013 (296) ELT A-16 (Gujarat).It is the contention that as the impugned judgment were not available while passing the order, therefore, this Tribunal be pleased to remit the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for fresh decision. 4. As per contra, the Ld. A.R. for Revenue has submitted that the adjudicating authority has held that CENVAT Credit of duty, if any, paid on the free supplied material is to be allowed by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on production of duty paying documents but this is beyond the scope of the impugned Show Cause Notice. He submits that in the present case the adjudicating authority has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of passing the order, the case laws cited by the Assessee were not available to the Ld. Commr. and therefore, he had no occasion to examine the facts of the present case, in light of the case laws (cited supra). We also find that Ld. Commr. has not recorded his findings on the issue raised by the Revenue whether the credit could be allowed on the duty paid materials used in the manufacture of impugned exempt goods. Revenue has further contended that while allowing the said credit, the Ld. Commr. has traversed beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Both sides agreed that these issues to be addressed afresh by the adjudicating authority. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, we are of the opinion that order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
