9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l held that the appellant was liable to reverse ₹ 14,21,259/-. This finding recorded by the previous authority as well as on remand by the adjudicating authority is factually incorrect and as per the detailed quantification, the appellant was required to reverse ₹ 11,37,010/-, which was reversed by them along with interest. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21258/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20628/2019 - Dated:- 9-8-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. N. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Gopa Kumar, Joint Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(3)(c) of CENVAT credit Rules should not be disallowed and recovered under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; besides proposing to impose penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act and levy of interest. Appellant contested the show-cause notice by filing the detailed reply. Further on 20.10.2008, the Additional Commissioner issued show-cause notice for the period from April 2007 to March 2008 making the same allegation as in the earlier show-cause notice dated 15.4.2008. The second show-cause notice required the appellant to show-cause as to why excess CENVAT credit of ₹ 11,92,256/- being utilized for payment of service tax in contravention of Rule 6(3)(c) of CENVAT cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estioned the quantification and that quantification of ₹ 14,21,259/- stands established in view of the facts at para 13 of the Order-in-Original No.25/2010 and was not in dispute anymore; and accordingly confirmed the said demand and appropriated a sum of ₹ 11,37,010/- already paid by the appellant and also appropriated the payment of interest of ₹ 2,18,128/- already paid by the appellant. The adjudicating authority dropped the penalty by giving the benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culation as ₹ 11,37,010/- was reversed or paid by the appellant with interest. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has not seen the worksheets and without application of mind has again held that the appellant has not disputed the quantification of ₹ 14,21,259/- and also not enclosed any worksheets, which is factually incorrect. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has recorded a wrong finding that the appellant did not dispute the quantification. In support of his various submissions, the appellant has relied upon the following decisions: DBC Port Logistics Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (48) STR 494 (Tri.-Mum.) DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (38) STR 620 (Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority is factually incorrect and as per the detailed quantification, the appellant was required to reverse ₹ 11,37,010/-, which was reversed by them along with interest. Further, I find that the Tribunal vide its order dated 25.7.2017 remanded the matter on the allegation that as per the claim of the assessee, they are liable to pay approximately ₹ 11.37 lakhs while the adjudicating authority has confirmed approximately ₹ 14.21 lakh. Further, I note that the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellant have not annexed any worksheet to dispute the quantification and therefore, the quantification stands establish is factually incorrect and contrary to the finding recorded by the previous authority. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
