9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/70040/2016-EX [ SM ] - Final Order No. 70005/2018 - Dated:- 10-11-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Appellant Shri Nishant Mishra (Advocate) for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal filed by Revenue is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/EXCUS/000/239/APPL-I/2015-16 dated 28.09.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise, Meerut. 2. It appeared to Revenue that during the period from March, 2008 to March, 2012 Cenvat Credit of ₹ 12,83,280/- + ₹ 43,078/- + ₹ 11,239/- was not admissible to the respondent on various accounts such as admissibil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Cenvat Credit on the basis of photostat copies of invoices and remanded the matter to Original Authority with direction to verify the originals. Further in respect of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on the services where invoices were issued to various offices of the respondent, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted admissibility in principle and remanded the matter to Original Authority to verify whether services were received by the respondent. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also set aside penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules on the respondent holding that respondent had regularly filed ER-1 and ST-3 returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of service tax paid on outward transportation in the goods to be delivered at destination in view of ruling of Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vs. Rine Machine Tools reported at 2016 (42) STR 809 (P H). 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in view of the fact that ER-1 and ST-3 returns were filed by the respondent regularly there was no case of any suppression and, therefore, I uphold the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of setting aside penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. I, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
