9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985. During Audit of the records of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant has availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 32,76,938/- during the period February 2008 to April 2008 on structural items i.e. M.S. Angels, M.S. Plates, HR Coil, TMT Bars etc. falling under Chapter 72 as input. Therefore, a SCN dated 25.05.2010 was issued to the appellant for the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 32,76,938/- for the period February 2008 to April 2008, along with interest and imposition of penalty. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide OIO dated 28.12.2016 confirmed the demand of Rs. 32,76,938/- along with applicable interest and im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appeal on 18.02.2019. He further submitted that the finding of the Commissioner that OIO was served on the appellant on 08.02.2017 is wrong. He further submitted that, in fact, the unit was taken over by SBI/Andhra Bank under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act and subsequently was handed over to them only on 19.11.2018 and the said letter of the bank is on record. He further submitted that in the OIO, the Original Authority has noted the fact while issuing the Notice for personal hearing that a unit is closed and the Notice was pasted for personal hearing on 16.11.2016 on the Notice Board of the factory under Mahazar proceedings. He further submitted that once the unit is clo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 16.11.2016 to the Notice Board of the factory under Mahazar proceedings. As per the Original Authority, the service has been affected and the Original Authority thereafter decided the appeal on the basis of the record available without hearing the appellant. Further, I find that Panchnama dated 08.02.2017 has not been brought on record. Further, I note that when the unit was not in the possession of the appellant from 2013 to 2018 then pasting the Hearing Notice on a closed unit does not amount to proper service in the eyes of Law. In fact, the OIO in this case was actually received by the appellant on 21.11.2018 and the appeal before the Commissioner (A) was filed on 18.02.2019. As per Section 35 of the CEA, 1944, an appeal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
