9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade is not sustainable in law and therefore, the appeal of the appellant allowed to the extent of dropping the demand of interest and penalty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21475/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20464/2018 - Dated:- 20-3-2018 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Dayanand, CA Vishnu Daya Co. : For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Poduwal, Superintendent (AR) : For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 01/05/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Garmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed contrary to the factual and legal position. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He also submitted that the Revenue has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation. He further submitted that every year the appellant is being subjected to audit and -during the audit, the documents like trial balance and balance sheet copies are produced for verifications. Appellants have also given the details of the audit of last three years and submitted that nothing has been concealed from the Department and all the records were filed for verification of the Department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s fully Further, inputs for which provisions of write off was provisionally made was subsequently used in manufacture as per provisions of Rule 3(5B) of CCR - There was no recovery mechanism to recover the cenvat credit wrongly taken under provisions of Rule 3(5B) and the recovery mechanism was brought into existence from 01.03.2013 vide Notfn. 3/2013-CE (NT) - Ratios of decisions in 2009-TIOL-1057-CESTAT-MUM and 2008-TIOL-2297-CESTAT-BANG. clearly applicable in facts and circumstances of present case and therefore by following the same, demand of cenvat credit for inputs for which provision to write off has been made is not sustainable in law and therefore, same is set aside: CESTAT The Tribunal in the case of Heidelberg Cement India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
