9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants were not entitled to avail the credit of duty paid on the transformer oil used for repair purposes. The appellant reversed the credit in question, and the amount so reversed was confirmed vide an earlier order-in-original dated 30.03.2010. The same was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), who remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-In-Appeal No. 230 and 231 dated 29 October, 2010. The appellant further went in appeal before the CESTAT, Delhi. The Hon'ble CESTAT vide their Final Order No.A/50234/2014 dated 23 January, 2014 disposed-off the appeal of the assessee by holding that if there was no proposal in the show cause notice to confirm and appropriate the already reversed cenvat credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited by the appellant, without any proposal of appropriate the same in the show cause notice. The Hon'ble CESTAT in its Final Oder dated 23.01.2014, had held that if there was no proposal in the show-cause-notice to confirm and appropriate the already reversed Cenvat credit, such confirmation and appropriation may not be in accordance with law. On perusal of the SCN dated 30.03.2009, I find that the only proposal regarding the amounts of Cenvat credit reversed by the appellant is for the recovery of interest on the said amount. There is no proposal for the demand and appropriation of the Cenvat credit reversed by the appellant. The adjudication authority therefore has wrongly confirmed the demand which is not only beyond the SCN, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to evade. I also find that the demand pertains to the financial year 2006-07 for which the SCN was issued on 30.03.2009 by invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act. It has not been alleged in the SCN that the non-payment of duty in terms of the Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules was due to conscious and deliberate wrong doing on the part of the appellant. In fact, there is no even a whisper of any allegation of suppression, fraud, collusion, mis-statement which intent to evade duty made out against the appellant in the SCN. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner CEX and ST, LTU, Mumbai, has held as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for denial of credit on the technical and procedural aspect. Accordingly, confirmation of demand on the said count was set-aside by CESTAT. Despite the CESTAT having set aside the demand, the adjudicating authority took fancy in reconsidering a decided matter and imposed penalty which was already set aside. The order confirming the penalty is not only bad in law but also in violation of the of principle of judicial discipline. The demand of duty and interest, and imposition of penalty are, therefore, set aside" 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 4. We have heard learned A.R. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 5. Admittedly the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
