9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as remanded the case back to the original authority on the question of imposition of penalty. Further, the original authority has also not followed the direction of the Tribunal and examined the merits of the case and has rejected the claim 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 case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to comply with the direction and decide the whole case on merits as well as on limitation - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20504/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20878/2019 - Dated:- 21-10-2019 - HON'BLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty with a direction to pass de novo order on merits. After the remand, the original authority dropped the demand of penalty under Rule 15 to the extent of ₹ 70,662/- in respect of the CENVAT credit availed on Plastic Crates and confirmed penalty of ₹ 17,77,735/- under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the de novo order of the original authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh adjudication only in respect of imposition of penalties without considering the submissions made on merits. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the appellant during the audit has accepted their fault and has reversed the CENVAT credit along with interest and the show-cause notice was only issued proposing penalty. She further submitted that after accepting the fault, the appellant cannot contest the case on merits. She fairly conceded that the Commissioner (A) has only considered the penalty aspect and has not retuned any findings on merits in spite of grounds raised by the appellant on merits. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the impugned order the Commissioner (A) has misconstrued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
