9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t deposit the assessed amount in compliance of the order dated 9.9.13 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the appeal preferred was dismissed for default in compliance of the order dated 9.9.13, ignoring that the application preferred by the appellant for recalling/modification of order dated 9.9.13 was pending consideration - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee for alleged non-compliance of order dated 9.9.13, without considering the application preferred by the assessee for recalling/modification of the said order, rejecting the stay petition preferred for non-prosecution? Held that: - the appellant having preferred the application as aforesaid, the Appellate Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The relevant facts are that the appellant-assessee removed the goods valuing at ₹ 84,40,721/- involving Central Excise duty of ₹ 12,94,584/-, without reversing the amount of CENVAT credit. The Additional Commissioner found that there is blatant contravention of Rule 3(5) read with Section 3(4)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ('the Rules of 2004') and accordingly, vide order dated 30.12.10, while determining the liability towards excise duty of ₹ 12,94,584/-, imposed penalty of ₹ 12,94,584/- on the assessee in terms of provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The order was upheld by the CCE(A), vide order dated 12/14.12.12. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the appeal preferred by the appellant for alleged default in compliance of the order dated 9.9.13, when admittedly the application preferred by the appellant for recalling the said order was still pending consideration before the Appellate Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents while not disputing the factum of pendency of the application of recalling/modification order dated 9.9.13 preferred by the appellant, submitted that the appellant having failed to comply with the condition of pre-deposit, as directed by the Appellate Tribunal, the order impugned, rejecting the appeal for default in compliance cannot be faulted with. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
