9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the adjudicating authority and as such his comments are not available - the captive consumption N/N. 67/95-CE is available to an assessee if the obligation in terms of Rule 6 stands discharged by the assessee. As per requirement of said Rule 6, no Cenvat credit is available to the manufacturing unit. The said fact requires verification - The applicability of the ratio of the said two decisions as mentioned i.e., Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh [2015 (11) TMI 1413 - SUPREME COURT] and Funskool (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Goa [2016 (12) TMI 1267 - CESTAT MUMBAI] is required to be considered by the adjudicating authority, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for which matter is required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties. Hence the present three appeals. 4. Ld.Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they were purchasing the Paperboard from the market and were sending the same to their job-worker along with purchased ink and chemicals etc. for the purpose of printing on the same the appellant s brand name along with art work/design. The appellants were not claiming any Cenvat credit in respect of the said materials purchased by them from the market. The process undertaken by them in their factory was cutting the printed paper board by hydraulic press and retrieving the unit flat pre-forms of Dibbis/Boxes therefrom, in their premises. These printed flattened pre-form of boxes/dibbies with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of Aggarbatties. The Honourable Apex Court observed that as per clause (vi) of the Notification, the only condition is discharge of obligation in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules and this would mean that for non compliance of the provisions of Rule 6 would result in foregoing Cenvat Credit. The learned Commissioner in his orders under Appeals did not dispute fulfillment of obligation under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2006 by the present Appellant but held that Sl.No.(vi) of the proviso to above Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 spoke about discharging of obligation prescribed under Rule 6 ibid by the manufacturer of dutiable and exempted final products and not by the manufacturer of only exempted goods like M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iances on the various decisions of the Courts. 7. After hearing the ld.A.R., we note that the impugned order stands passed by the Commissioner, without hearing the appellant in person. Even though the adjudicating authority had fixed various dates of hearings and as such cannot be faulted upon, but the fact remains that the appellants were not heard in person. As such the impugned order can be held to be suffering from violations of principles of natural justice. 8. Apart from the above we also note that the detailed process of manufacture, now being canvassed before us by the appellant was not placed before the adjudicating authority and as such his comments are not available. Similarly the applicability of the Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
