2014 (11) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal disposed of finally the appeal preferred by the respondent. The respondent had challenged the Order-in-Original and that was dated 31-3-2011. That order was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V, confirming the demand of duty. A show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the benefit which has been availed of and namely a Cenvat credit attributable to input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods, should not be recovered. It is stated that an amount to the extent of Rs. 67,92,731/- was to be recovered under the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and why interest and also pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eposit in its entirety. However, we find that the appeal could not have been disposed of by such a short order. The matter concerns interpretation of some rule. If that interpretation accords with the view taken by this Court and sought to be cited by the Tribunal, then, that is something which has to be gone into and decided in depth. By merely referring to that judgment of this Court, the issue cannot be said to be covered. This is one more case where we have an occasion to comment and adversely on unsatisfactory disposal of the appeal by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Judicial Tribunal has been set up in order to decide not only the appeals against the Order-in-Original but even against the first Appellate Aut....