9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same is availing the benefit of Notification NO.50/03-CE while unit at Mallanpur cleared its products on payment of duty. Assam unit and Jammu unit availed the exemption under Notification No.32/99-CE and Notification No.56/02-CE respectively and initially cleared the goods on payment of duty by using Cenvat credit available at the end of the month to the extent possible and claimed exemption under these notifications of the duty, if any, paid through PLA. - appellant had raised the question of limitation and but the Commissioner has not given any finding whatsoever on this point. The Commissioner has passed a non-speeding order. Hence, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtments contention is that the credit of service distributed to Malanpur unit also included the credit attributable to Baddi unit. It is on this that the show cause notice dated 22.4.13 was issued for recovery of allegedly wrongly availed credit amounting to ₹ 17,11,39,812/- for the period April, 2008 to March, 2012 alongwith interest on it under section 11AB and also for imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC. The show cause notice also sought imposition of penalty. 1.2 The show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dt.3.6.14 by which the Commissioner confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of ₹ 12,15,64,838/- against the appellant unit alongwith in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Assam unit and Jammu unit without excluding the credit attributable to Baddi unit, that the Appellant had also raised the issue of limitation as is clear from the Order-in-Original which has been recorded in para M-1 to M-25 pleading that extended period is not invokable and hence the demand is barred by limitation, but no finding has been given by the Commissioner on this plea, that the impugned order is therefore, a non-speaking and in view of this, that the same has to be remanded for de novo adjudication. 4. Shri Pramod Kumar, learned JCDR, while defending the impugned order pleaded that the points raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal which have been recorded in the Order-in-Original but the same have not been discussed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
