9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NVAT Credit - input services - Consultancy service - HELD THAT:- The issue was also held in favour of the appellant, however with regards to the admissibility of payment of secondary and Higher Education Cess from the Cenvat credit balance of the Education Cess is concerned the Tribunal has held that, the Tribunal has not accepted the stand of the appellant and thereafter, immediately proceeded to direct the appellant for payment of interest on credit taken in excess on the ground that the same is not taken as a ground in appeal of the appellant. Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that though the specific contentions with regards to the penalty and interest has been taken before the Tribunal, there is no specific find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in passing such order without any findings and reasoning on penalties and interest? (C) Whether the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is considered as violation of principles of natural justice as the points urged before the Appellate Tribunal have been disregarded without giving finding on it? 2. This Court by order dated 26-4-2018 has recorded as under : The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1992 and has been carrying on the business of manufacturing Cables and Conductors falling under Chapters 74, 76 85 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, penalty of ₹ 2,74,771/- on the appellant and also penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- on the Managing Director of the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant and its managing director filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority and by order dated 24-5-2013 rejected the appeal. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the First Appellate Authority, appellant preferred separate appeals before the CESTAT along with the stay applications. Separate order was passed on stay application staying the recovery and treating the amount deposit prior to show cause notice to be sufficient compliance. 8. By the order dated 22-7-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addressed the same and has not given any findings. 12. It is further submitted that, similarly no finding is given upholding the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority for alleged excess CENVAT credit taken. However, there is no discussion or finding on the point as to whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 11AC more particularly, when the entire amount was deposited before the issuance of show cause notice. It is submitted that the Tribunal has also not considered the arguments and given finding on the argument that non-levy of interest when the payment of Higher Education Cess from the CENVAT credit balance Education Cess was available and therefore no question of interest when it was only a mistake in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as Paragraph 3.0 is of the rectification application. 16. Learned Advocate for the applicant rightly relies upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2017 (351) E.L.T. 38 (Guj.) alleged in the case of Padmavati Tubes v. Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T., Vapi and 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 113 (Guj.) in case of SCI International Securities Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. S.T., Vadodara, wherein this Court has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal on the issue of non-consideration and non-dealing with the contentions raised by the appellants therein and passing a non-speaking order. 17. Considering the aforementioned and in view of the fact that though the specific contentions with regards to the penalty and interest has been taken be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
