9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd Vs UOI [2013 (1) TMI 525 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein the Board Circular No. 904/24/2009-CX dated 28/10/2009 requiring reversal of credit or payment of amount in terms of Rule 6 stands quashed. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/841/2008, E/1033/2009, E/3084/2012-SM - Final Order Nos. 20397 - 20399 / 2017 - Dated:- 24-3-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri J.N. Somaiya, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellants have filed three appeals. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical, therefore all the three appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide the Audit Report No. 202/2006 directed the appellant to pay an amount equal to 10% of the selling price of the electricity sold to M/s. KPTCL. Thereafter a show-cause notice cum demand notice dated 14.09.2007 was issued to the appellant demanding an amount of ₹ 42,81,805/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Five only) in respect of the electricity sold during the relevant period under Rule 6(3)(b) and Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944. The show-cause notice also demanded an interest and proposed penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. After following the due process of law, the Additional Commissioner, Belgaum vide Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide his Order-in-Original dated 26.10.2010 confirmed the demand for an amount of ₹ 42,81,805/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Five only) along with interest and equal penalty. Being aggrieved by the said de novo order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned Order No. 386/2012 dated 17.08.2012 has rejected their appeal and hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by completely ignoring the provisions of law as well as the direction of the earlier Commissioner (Appeals). He further submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the Additional Commissioner has no other alternative than to confirm the demand equal to 10%/5% amount on the selling price of the electricity sold. The learned counsel further submitted that when in principle, it is accepted that the appellants are not liable to pay 10%/5% amount under Rule 6 on the selling price of the electricity sold to M/s. KPTCL, there is absolutely no justification in confirming the demand equal to the said amount by contending that the appellants have not produced the details in respect of the proportionate credit on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the said quantity of electricity. He further submitted that the reading of the Order-in-Appeal decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 225 b) Worldwide Trade Est. Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (219) ELT 588 c) TVS Srichakra Ltd. 2010 (250) ELT 540 d) Transformers Rectifiers (I) Ltd. 2009 (247) ELT 748 It has been held in the case cited supra that any order passed by the adjudicating authority in the remand proceedings ignoring the directions given to them by the appellate authority while remanding the case back, is unjust and arbitrary and this plea was raised by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) who did not consider the same and upheld the Order-in-Original. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even on merit the issue involved in the present appeals are no more res integra and have been settled in favour of the appellant by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
