9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) TMI 859 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held in favor of assessee. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/20362/2018-SM, E/20363/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20722-20723 / 2018 - Dated:- 4-5-2018 - S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG Appellants have filed these two appeals against the common impugned order dated 4.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellants. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Rule 6(3)(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After due process, the lower authority adjudicated the case, confirming the demand with interest and imposed penalty. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that appellant is a manufacturer of MS Ingots and MS Beams and not the trader of inputs. Merely, because some of the inputs procured by the appellant for the manufacture of final products have been cleared as such in terms of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a manufacturer and he has cleared some inputs as such by reversing the CENVAT credit taken by them originally on the said input and therefore, activity is covered by Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules and therefore they are not required to follow the procedure as prescribed under Rule 6 against clearances of some of the inputs as such does not amount to trading and the Revenue has also not been able to establish that appellant is a trader and is engaged in trading activities. I also find that this Tribunal vide Final Order No.20467/2018 dated 1.3.2018 in appellant s own case on identical issue for an earlier period has allowed the appeal of the appellant. The ratios of the above said decision are squarely applicable to the appellant s cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
