9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants have reversed the cenvat credit along with interest before the issue of SCN. Further both the authorities have not considered the amendment in Rule 15(2) which was brought on 27.02.2010 - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority with a direction to consider the claim of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/21213/2015-SM - 21549/2016 - Dated:- 22-12-2016 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri Akbar Basha, CA, For the Appellant Dr. Ezhil Mathi, AR, For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the appellant on being pointed out by the Audit, paid the duty along with interest before the issue of show-cause notice and in terms of Section 11A(1)(b) no show-cause notice should have been issued. He further submitted that penalty has been imposed by the original authority without determining the duty liability under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and further for invoking provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 to impose penalty, there should be determination of duty liability under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. He further submitted that original authority has not examined the eligibility or not of each input service involved in the case but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and sales register, but on this also there is no finding returned by both the authorities. He also submitted that the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit availed on plastic crates but on this also there is no findings returned by both the authorities. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the grounds of appeal and the explanation provided and without ascertaining the facts of the case and without considering the evidences and objection of the cenvat credit claimed. He further submitted that both the authorities have confined their findings only with regard to the imposition of penalty without considering the detailed submissions supported by case-laws submitted by the appellant in reply to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
