9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1021 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on account of non-deposit of the pre-deposit amount of 7.5% as required - reversal of CENVAT Credit - wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit on input services - HELD THAT - The appellant has now deposited the mandatory pre deposit of 10% of the disputed amount. Since the appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit of disputed amount was not complied with by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal the said compliance has been made by the appellant and thus the requisite pre deposit has been deposited It would therefore be in the interest of justice that the appeal is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be considered on merits more so as the stand taken by the appellant is that the issue on merits is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT . The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be heard on merits.
Issues involved:
The appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed due to non-deposit of pre-deposit amount of 7.5%. Issue 1: Non-deposit of pre-deposit amount The appellant, a cooperative society engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses, availed cenvat credit on input services. The department alleged wrongful availing of credit, leading to a demand for reversal of Rs. 13,92,023/-, along with penalty and interest. The Assistant Commissioner affirmed the demand, and the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected for non-deposit of the pre-deposit amount. The appellant has now deposited 10% of the disputed amount, complying with the requirement. The Tribunal found this compliance in the interest of justice and remanded the appeal back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits, citing the appellant's reliance on a decision of the Apex Court. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing on merits.
|
