9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, the Commissioner (A) refrained from restoring the appeals and decided the same on merits. As per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the appellant is required to make mandatory pre-deposit @ 7.5% of the duty demanded in the order to entertain their appeals by the Commissioner (A) or by the Tribunal - But, in the present case, the appellants have made the mandatory pre-deposit which was not considered by the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the same was brought to his notice while disposing of the appeals. Since the Commissioner (A) has not decided the issue on merits, therefore, all the appeals are remanded to the Commissioner (A) with a direction to decide the same on merits after complying with the principles of natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the facts of appeal No. E/21468/2018 are taken. 3. Appellant is a society and is registered under the Central Excise and is availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on input and service tax. The appellants have taken the CENVAT credit of ₹ 30,214/- during the period January to February 2013 on the basis of credit distribution document issued by the input service provider. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise held that the appellant is not entitled to CENVAT credit for the reason that the distribution of credit by Input Service Distributor (ISD) is not as per CENVAT Credit Rules, and therefore, ineligible vide order dated 30.12.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned AR defended the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the impugned orders have been admitted by the Commissioner (A) and that the appellant have made the mandatory pre-deposit on 5.2.2016 vide challan No.0072 and copy of the letter dated 19.5.2016 along with challan showing pre-deposit was enclosed. But in spite of the mandatory pre-deposit made by the appellant, the Commissioner (A) refrained from restoring the appeals and decided the same on merits. As per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the appellant is required to make mandatory pre-deposit @ 7.5% of the duty demanded in the order to entertain their appeals by the Commissioner (A) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
