9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication to deny the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on goods received from M/s Ritzy Polymers - matter remanded for verifying whether M/s Ritzy Polymers have been permitted to avail benefit of N/N. 56/2002 during the period under dispute. Penalty - CENVAT credit in respect of goods found short at the time of stock verification - Held that: - the disputed amount stands paid by the appellant even before issue of SCN - there is no justification to impose penalty which is set-aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Appeal No. E/51181,51179,51180/2017 - Final Order No. 58029-58031/2017 - Dated:- 23-11-2017 - Hon ble Justice (Dr) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr V. Padmanabhan, Member (Tech) For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n addition to this, Cenvat credit reversal amounting to ₹ 4,18,839/- was also ordered in respect of goods found short during verification of stock. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeals have been filed. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri Amit Jain, ld Advocate, representing the appellant as well as Shri R.K.Mishra, DR representing Revenue. 3. Shri Amit Jain summaised the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant as follows: i) The availment of the benefit of the area based exemption Notification No.1/2010 by M/s Ritzy Polymers was disputed by the department and the issue is pending before the Hon ble Tribunal at Chandigarh. Meanwhile, M/s Ritzy Polymers had requested the jurisdictional authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1/2010 dated 06.02.2010, M/s Ritzy Polymers undertook substantial expansion with a view to availing the benefit under the new exemption for a further period of 10 years. The dispute pertains to inputs received from M/s Ritzy Polymers by availing Notification No.1/2010 for the period up to 19.01.2014. The department has denied the benefit of Cenvat credit for the reason that Notification no.1/2010 is not specified in Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules but the Notification no.56/2002 is included. The main submission of the appellant is that even in the absence of the benefit of Notification No.1/2010, M/s Ritzy Polymers have requested the jurisdictional authorities to permit them to continue to avail he benefit under Notification 56/2002 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
