9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has not been able to bring in any evidence on record to show any intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/23692/2014-SM - 20829/2017 - Dated:- 27-1-2017 - Mr. Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain (C.A) For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy N.K, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.8.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant but modified the demand of CENVAT credit from ₹ 16,32,578/- to ₹ 5,71,401/- and accordingly, the penalty is also confined to this amount of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 16,32,578/- and confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equivalent penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR). Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who reduced the demand from ₹ 16,32,578/- to ₹ 5,71,401/-, after taking the reports from the Assistant Commissioner who reported that the appellants availed only ₹ 5,71,401/- as CENVAT credit in ER-1 returns during the month of March 2007 to April 2007. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the evidence on record. He further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (A) has not considered this evidence at all. Further, I find that the Commissioner (A) has rejected the CENVAT credit mainly on the ground that the appellant have failed to substantiate their claim with evidence whereas the appellant filed the certificate prepared by the Chartered Engineers who has certified that out of the total credit 35% of the steel amounting to ₹ 5,71,403/- used in the manufacture of capital goods and all the details regarding utilization of the steel has been given in the ER1 returns on the basis of which the show-cause notice has been issued. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire demand is barred by time as there is no suppression or fraud can be alleged by the department for invoking the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
