9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holds that the Petitioners are not entitled to Cenvat Credits of ₹ 11.37 crores and confirmed the demand on that basis. The revenue can obviously be right only on one of two counts and not on both counts i.e. either the impugned order dated 28 February 2019 is correct or the impugned order dated 18 March 2019 is correct. In fact passing such contrary orders, only seems to suggest that the entire adjudication proceedings are a mere farce. The attitude of the Revenue even at the level of the Commissioner is that the demand has to be confirmed and the relief if any, the party has to obtain from Appellate Authorities. This attitude brings to a naught to claim of the State that it is business friendly. There is no question of the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirmed under section 73(2) of the Act with an equivalent penalty under section 76 of the Act. While the Order dated 18 March 2019 passed by Commissioner -GST Mumbai-East, for similar period holds that the freight charges are exempt from tax under the Act. Consequently Cenvat Credit to the extent of ₹ 11.37 crores has been confirmed under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with an equivalent penalty under section 78 of the Act. It is in the above circumstances, that the Petitioner prays that this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in view of the arbitrary orders passed by the Respondent. 3. On the face of it the two impugned orders in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above finding he confirms the recovery of an amount of ₹ 2.36 crores as Service Tax. On the other hand the Commissioner of GST, Mumbai (East) in his order dated 18 March 2019 holds that the freight charges are an exempted service. Thus as a result holds that the Petitioners are not entitled to Cenvat Credits of ₹ 11.37 crores and confirmed the demand on that basis. The revenue can obviously be right only on one of two counts and not on both counts i.e. either the impugned order dated 28 February 2019 is correct or the impugned order dated 18 March 2019 is correct. 4. In fact passing such contrary orders, only seems to suggest that the entire adjudication proceedings are a mere farce. The attitude of the Revenue even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
