9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shah (Advocate) For Respondent: Mr. A. Mishra (A.R.) ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These two appeals are filed against respective orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Vapi. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had availed cenvat credit Credit credit of ₹ 49,11,392/- during the period 2006-2007 to June 2010 on the invoices issued by their Head office registered as an input service distributor (ISD). Alleging that the credit was inadmissible, Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of the credit with interest and proposal for penalty; personal penalty on Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan also proposed. On adjudication the demand was confirmed with interest and equal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant company and also the personal penalty on the authorized signatory K. G. Unnikrishnan was filed. Later, during the course of hearing of stay application, it was realized that the second/ technical appeal was required to be filed by the authorized signatory Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously rejected the appeal filed by the authorized signatory on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. He submits that merely that the authorized signatory had not filed a separate appeal itself cannot debar him from challenging the personal penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that the issue has been settled by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Benu Rame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount has been reflected and it is his contention that all the invoices issued by the ISD reflects the service tax amount paid while receiving the banking and financial services from the respective banks. He prays that the matter may be remanded to Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) so as to verify all the relevant documents for the entire period and also afford a chance to the appellant to rebut the findings recorded pertaining to the period April 2006 to February 2007 as no such allegation is forthcoming from Show Cause Notice. As far as distribution of credit in favour of silvasa unit is concerned, I find force in the contention of Ld. Advocate for the appellant in view of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in ECOF Industries (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
