9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri Mahesh Raichandani, Advocate for appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Appellant has pressed its application stating that there appeared mistake in the order sought to be rectified on the basis of averments made in paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the present in application which reads as under:- 2.2 The applicant submits that they had not conceded the 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 ₹ 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata, documents and reconciliation statement submitted by the applicant was to prove that there is no short payment. Though there could have been mistakes in filing improper ST-3 returns, however, there was no short payment. This submission has not been construed and considered properly. Thus, there is a mistake apparent 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e main appellant and direct the adjudicating authority to consider the reconciliation statement and arrive at correct figure of short payment of duty. The main appellant will discharge the said short payment 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
