9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in view of the rejection of the petitioner's appeal before the CESTAT. In those circumstances, it was necessary for the original authority to give effect to the order of the appellate authority. A remand is necessary for such purpose. Meanwhile, the recovery notice was issued by treating the petitioner under the category of 'arrears'. On examining circular No.1081, such circular specifies that if there is a remand for de novo adjudication, the case will not fall within the category of 'arrears'. As indicated earlier, the appellate authority did not set aside the order of the original authority and remand the matter for de novo adjudication. Hence, the conclusion that the petitioner's case falls within the category ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l (the CESTAT). As on date, the appellate order continues to hold good because the appeal before the CESTAT was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed. In these circumstances, the impugned recovery notice was issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the appellate order and contended that the tax liability of the petitioner is likely to be revised downward if the benefits of cenvat credit were to be extended to the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned recovery notice was issued by treating the petitioner as falling within the category of 'arrears' as per circular No.1081/02/2022-CX of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 19.01.2022. He subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the CESTAT. In those circumstances, it was necessary for the original authority to give effect to the order of the appellate authority. A remand is necessary for such purpose. 7. Meanwhile, the recovery notice was issued by treating the petitioner under the category of 'arrears'. On examining circular No.1081, such circular specifies that if there is a remand for de novo adjudication, the case will not fall within the category of 'arrears'. As indicated earlier, the appellate authority did not set aside the order of the original authority and remand the matter for de novo adjudication. Hence, the conclusion that the petitioner's case falls within the category of 'arrears' does not contain any infirmity. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
