9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under one provision of the Central Excise Act whereas confirmed the demand under different provisions of law which is not permitted under law. The original authority has observed that appellant has not appeared before them and satisfied the authority regarding the procedure followed by them - matter remanded to the original authority who will pass a De novo order after affording an opportunity of hearing and after considering the findings - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20972/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20011/2019 - Dated:- 3-1-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. D. Sharathkumr For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Joint Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Nine only) along with interest and penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30.12.2015 disallowed and ordered for recovery of irregularly transferred cenvat credit of ₹ 2,76,659/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Nine only) along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Thereafter a corrigendum to the Order-in-Original was issued on 24.03.2016 to read the Order-in-Original at para 14 and in order portion, with Section 11A(4) instead of Section 11A(5) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 15(2) of CCR, instead of Rule 15(1) of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bangalore 2011 (264) E.L.T. 306 (T) wherein it was held that no demand can be sustained unless the same is based on the proposal in the show-cause notice and the assessee has been afforded adequate opportunity to present his case in defense. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that when the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant he did not file the reply to the same and thereafter the original authority has afforded number of opportunity to the appellant to appear and satisfy the authorities regarding the procedure followed by him in transferring the cenvat credit but in spite of the opportunities given to the appellant, they did not appear and thereafter the original authority has com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r I find that the original authority has also travelled beyond the show-cause notice and proposed the recovery under one provision of the Central Excise Act whereas confirmed the demand under different provisions of law which is not permitted under law. Further I find that the corrigendum issued to the appellant is also not sustainable in view of the Board Circular 502/68/99-CX dated 16.12.1999. Further I find that original authority has observed that appellant has not appeared before them and satisfied the authority regarding the procedure followed by them. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant by way of remand to the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
