9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary : Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Organo Sulphur Compounds, Rubber Accelerator and Pitch classifiable under chapters 28, 29 and 38 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the audit in January 2011, it was observed that certain duty paying documents for input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory premise of the manufacturer is not a condition as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following case laws: 1. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. DNH Spinner [2009 (16) STR 418 (Tri.-Ahmd)] 2. Modern Petrofils v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [2010 (20) STR 627 (Tri.-Ahmd)] 3. SAIL v. CCE & ST, Ranchi [2010 (255) ELT 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. [2016 (41) S.T.R. 884(Guj.)] has observed as under: "8. Coming to the question of penalty, right from the show cause notice stage till the final disposal of the show cause notice proceedings, we find little evidence to support the allegations of willful misstatement, suppression, fraud or collusion on the part of the assessee. In fact, perusal of the show cause notice would show that the entir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Therefore, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is unwarranted and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of the documents and to pass order in accordance with law. Needless to say a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the appellant. Both parties are at liberty to place evidences in their favour. Accordingly, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
