9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aged in the manufacture of PP Woven fabric and sacks, PP Liner falling under Chapter Heading 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the audit, it was pointed out that the appellant has committed certain irregularities in availing CENVAT credit and short-payment of duty. The appellant paid the duty along with interest as pointed out by the audit party. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that appellant has availed ineligible CENVAT credit along with penalties. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand and appropriated the duty paid and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who confirmed the Order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the de novo adjudication has discussed the merits of the case but has not given any findings and has wrongly confirmed the penalty by alleging suppression with intent to evade payment of duty on the appellant. He further submitted that before the Commissioner (A), the appellant had filed appeal taking all the grounds on merits but the Commissioner (A) has wrongly considered the appeal only on penalty without going through the grounds of appeal and has observed that there was no mala fide on the part of the appellant and they have paid the duty along with interest before the issue of show-cause notice. After observing this, the learned Commissioner (A) still remanded the matter to the original authority to decide the question of penalty. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im of the appellant on the ground that they have accepted their fault during the audit and has reversed the same. Having done that, the original authority came to the conclusion that they are precluded to challenge the merit. This finding of the original authority is contrary to the direction given by the Tribunal vide its order dated 22.12.2016. Moreover, the Commissioner (A) has not returned any findings on merit. In view of this, I am of the considered view that impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant. Further, I find that this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to comply with the direction given in the Tribunal's Order dated 22.12.2016 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
