2017 (9) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e eligibility to credit of duty paid on inputs as well as credit of service tax paid on input services.  The total credit in both the appeals would be exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs and hence, the same is not a nominal amount.  In fact, what was submitted before the Hon'ble Bench was that the Ld. Commissioner has denied credit on the ground that the original invoices on which credit has been availed have not been produced.  The original invoices are available with the applicant and hence, the same can be verified.  The original invoices which are not available with the appellant were not being contested as nominal amount is involved therein.  Hence, the submission of the applicant has not been construed and considered prope .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the face of the order.  Therefore, this factual statement from para 5.1 needs to be deleted and the order needs to be modified accordingly." 2.      Para 2.2 of the application states that para 3.1 of the order of the Tribunal relates to claim of CENVAT credit which was held ineligible by the adjudicating authority and  the Tribunal decided the issue stating that the input credit was quite negligible. 2.1    In terms of para 2.3 of the application, appellant states that para 3.2 of the order needs modification contending that a date chart was filed and detailed submission was made during hearing.  But the Bench held that due to retrospective amendment  of law, there was a lia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of duty with interest.  We do not find any reason to interfere on the penalties imposed by adjudicating authority on this issue, which of course will be commensurate to the short payment arrived at." 2.3    The Bench analyzing the issues stated in the application,  held that the goods in question was not capital goods for which the main appellant was not eligible to CENVAT credit of the goods.  However, the Bench has directed ld. Adjudicating authority to re-examine the issue to the extent stated in the order.  For convenience of reading, paragraph 5.3 of the order in this regard  is reproduced below:- "5.3  It can be seen from the above reproduced relevant paragraphs of the decided case l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X