9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance of the final products . The adjudicating authority was required to examine the reply and deal with it rather than rejecting the contention by merely stating that the appellant has not been able to show any nexus. It has fairly been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that in regard to two services namely, rent-a-cab and outdoor catering, the appellant is not assailing the order on merits, but is assailing the order only on the quantification - also the reply filed by the appellant regarding the quantification of the demand of duty has not been considered at all by the adjudicating authority and in fact no finding has been recorded by the Commissioner - also, the Commissioner has not considered the issue raised by the appellant that notice could not have been issued to the recipient of service distributed by an ISD and no finding has been recorded. Invocation of the extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue relating to invocation of the extended period of limitation has been dealt with by the Commissioner in a very cryptic manner, though a detailed reply had been filed by the appellant. It is, therefore, a fit case where the matter should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NVAT credit on such input services. This show cause notice was issued for the periods 2012-2013, 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015. This show cause notice was followed by show cause notices dated 20.07.2016, 19.04.2018 and 05.07.2019 for the period April 2015 to March 2016, April 2016 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017 respectively. 4. A chart giving particulars of the four show cause notices relating to the appellant, with the corresponding orders and appeal numbers and period of dispute is reproduced below:- Particulars Show cause notice-1 Show cause notice-2 Show cause notice-3 Show cause notice-4 Date of show cause notice 18.03.2016 20.07.2016 19.04.2018 05.07.2019 Date of O-I-O 27.04.2018 27.04.2018 01.05.2019 11.12.2019 Appeal Number 53065/2018 53186/2018 51040/2019 50737/2020 Period of Dispute 2012-13 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The appellant filed replies to the aforesaid show cause notices. As noticed above, the first two show cause notices were adjudicated upon by a common order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner, CGST Central Excise Bhopal, [ the Commissioner ] by which the amount of CENVAT credit wrongly availed by the appellant was directed to be recovered with interest and penalty. The third show cause notice was adjudicated upon by order dated 01.05.2019 and the fourth show cause notice was adjudicated upon by order dated 11.12.2019. 6. Shri Monish Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside as they are non-speaking orders and do not take into consideration the replies filed by the appellant to the issues raised in the show cause notice. In this connection, learned counsel pointed out that the appellant had specifically stated as to why the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on each of the services, but without considering the submissions and without giving any reason, credit has been denied to the appellant. Learned counsel also pointed out that the quantification of demand is erroneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m during the period April, 2012 to March, 2015 and amounting to ₹ 6,03,84,290/-, availed during the financial year 2015-16 are not admissible to the party No. 1 and are liable to be recovered from them. Held accordingly. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us the reply given by the appellant to the show cause notice to all the services namely communication, maintenance and repair, courier services, security services, photocopy services, architect services, insurance services, real estate/ actuarial charges, rent-a-cab and outdoor catering. This reply runs from pages 126 to 142 of the appeal memo. All that has been stated by the adjudicating authority is that the appellant has not been able to show any nexus between the use of the service and manufacture and clearance of the final products . The adjudicating authority was required to examine the reply and deal with it rather than rejecting the contention by merely stating that the appellant has not been able to show any nexus. It has fairly been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that in regard to two services namely, rent-a-cab and outdoor catering, the appellant is not assailing the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
