9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner was absolutely wrong while rejecting the application of the appellant on the ground that the SCN has been issued as per clause 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. It is independent matter to rule 6 to be settled even if either the SCN was issued or any order was passed or any appeal is pending before any forum therefore, only because the SCN was issued commissioner should not have rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that appellant had availed Cenvat credit in respect of common input i.e. packing material which was used in exempted goods and they did not maintain separate record. The department issue Show cause notice for demanding the amount which is payable in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant also filed an application to settle their case in terms of Clause 73 of Finance Act, 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeal) under section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the appeal is not maintainable. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri J A Patel, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 3. I have carefully considered the submission made by learned AR and perused the records. I find that this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not have rejected the application of the appellant. As regard another ground of rejection is that the appellant has not submitted proper CA certificate, the same could have been advised to the appellant for submitting the correct CA Certificate. 4. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the concerned commissioner to re-decide the application dated 31.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
