9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84,549/- being 7.5% of the amount confirmed in the Order-in-Original - case remanded back to the Commissioner (A) to decide the appeals on merits. - E/COD/20374/2018 in E/20567/2018-SM E/20669/2018-SM, E/20567/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20820-20821 / 2018 - Dated:- 18-6-2018 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER None : For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, AR : For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng disposed of by this common order. 3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of prefabricated buildings falling under Chapter Heading 7308 / 1000 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as well as in erection, commissioning and installation of such prefabricated buildings for which they are procuring goods such as wire rope, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 6% of the value of exempted service availed for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15 along with interest and imposition of penalty was issued to the appellant. A statement of demand for an amount of ₹ 3,38,280/- being 6% of the value of exempted service availed for the further period from April 2015 to March 2016 along with interest and penalty was also raised. After following the due proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the findings of the Commissioner (A) is factually incorrect that the appellant has not made a pre-deposit of ₹ 84,549/- being 7.5% of the amount of ₹ 11,27,316/-. The appellant has also stated in the grounds of appeal that the Commissioner (A) has only considered the mandatory pre-deposit in one case whereas the appellant has attached the correspondin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
