9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DURAG INDIA INSTRUMENTATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [ 2018 (2) TMI 1894 - CESTAT BANGALORE] before the Tribunal - The department challenged the order of the adjudicating authority dated 25.02.2016 before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) who in terms of the order dated 13.10.2017 set aside the order dated 25.02.2016 as the order exceeded the terms of remand and further remitted the case back to the Original Authority to follow the directions passed in Appeal of M/S DURAG INDIA INSTRUMENTATION PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU WEST [ 2019 (6) TMI 64 - CESTAT BANGALORE ]. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - C.E.A. NO.1 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2021 - HON ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reverse the CENVAT credit of ₹ 6,04,910/-. The department issued a show cause notice dated 10.05.2010 proposing to demand CENVAT credit of ₹ 6,04,910/- for the period prior to April-2007 to July- 2008 along with interest and penalty. Though the appellant contested the notice, the adjudicating authority passed an order dated 27.12.2010 and confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit of ₹ 6,04,910/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant filed a First Appeal No.694/2014-CE and contested the order of adjudication before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-1). The first appeal was disposed off in terms of an order dated 17.11.2014, whereby the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the directions as per the order dated 17.11.2014. The appellant realizing the mistake in withdrawing the appeal before the Tribunal, filed an application for restoration of appeal which was heard by the Tribunal and rejected on 23.02.2018. The appellant thereafter filed a second appeal bearing No. E/20716/2018-SM challenging the order dated 17.11.2014 which was rejected by the Tribunal in terms of an order dated 31.05.2019 on the ground that the earlier appeal filed was withdrawn and that the present appeal was hit by principles of res judicata. The appellant has therefore filed the present petition challenging the order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Tribunal as well as the order dated 23.02.2018 in Miscellaneous Order No.20444/2018. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Department. 4. Now that the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) has remitted the case back to the Original Authority to comply the order passed in Appeal No.694/2014-CE, we feel it appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case to set at naught the order passed in Appeal No. 694/2014-CE and remit the entire case for proper adjudication before the Original Authority. Since the matter is now remitted to the Original Authority, all contentions are left open to be urged by the parties. 5. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the final order No.20445/2019 dated 31.05.2019 passed in Appeal E/20716/2018-SM are set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner for Central Excise(Appeals-I) in Appeal No. 694 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
