9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of filters falling under Chapter Subheading 8421 of CETA and are availing CENVAT credit facility un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest. Also penalty of Rs. 5,95,892/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2014, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who remanded the matter back to the original authority for re-examination on the aspect of invoices addressed to Head Office and the orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative Shri K. Venkatesan, Manager appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellants paid an amount of Rs. 25,358/- within 30 days of the receipt of the order. He further submitted that the appellant had throughout sufficient balance in their C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered view that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bill Forge Ltd. (supra). Therefore, I allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. (Operative portion of the Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
