9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -5-2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Division, Jabalpur (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adjudicating Authority') disputing the following issues decided in the impugned order : (i) Denial of Cenvat credit of service tax of Rs. 4,72,454/- and recovery thereof, along with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and (ii) Imposition of penalty of Rs. 4,72,454/- under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. In the application for waiver from pre-deposit, the appellant has stated that the impugned order suffer from serious factual error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated under while issuing subsequent show cause notice changing the period and charges levelled in the Original SCN. (vii) That the impugned Order passed by the adjudicating on time barred nature of SCN, hence entire proceedings is unwarranted and bad in law. (viii) That the appellant filed reply to all the SCN as issued by the adjudicating authority from time to time and appeared in personal hearing on 5-3-2014, but there is no discussion and finding in the impugned order. (ix) That the impugned order wrongly resorted longer period when normal period is available to revenue because issue is well known to the revenue and the appellant filed excise returns showing the input credit. They placed on the decision delivered in the case of CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for decision on merit. 6. I have carefully examined the facts of the case, evidences available on records, defence submissions of the appellant, relevant provisions of law and judicial rulings. The main issue before me is whether the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,72,454/- or otherwise. 7. It is observed that the period and amount covered by the show cause notice decided by the impugned order is as below : Sr. No. SCN No. & Date Period Amount (Rs.) 1 V(73)03-26/DEM/13-14/6510, dated 3-9-2013 08/2008 to 03/2013 (amended to April, 2012-March, 2013 vide Corrigendum dated 22-1-2014) 4,72,454/- 8. I find that the issues involved in the aforesaid show cause notice are wrong availment of Cenvat cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Mumbai)], the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the issue of corrigendum to show cause notice after personal hearing is not valid. The relevant Para 3(e) of this decision is reproduced below : Para 3(e) : In the facts and circumstance of this case we find that a prima facie case has been made out to come to conclusion that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the adjudicator and the decision impugned herein as arrived is required to be set aside with directions that the notices should be heard and defence reply/materials considered and thereafter a finding arrived on the issues involved in this case. This appeal is therefore required to be allowed as remand to the Commissioner. 10. I find that in case of Bhushan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. [Assent per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - I entirely agree with the view of my learned brother of remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsidering the issue. At the same time, I would also like to make a note that the appellate authority having considered and admitted that there is violation of principles of natural justice, himself should have sent the matter back to the lower authorities instead of deciding the matter on merits. This is a settled law. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in the above terms. 12. I also find that in case of CCE, Meerut-II v. HSA Chadha Exports reported at 2014 (302) E.L.T. 244 (Tri. - Del.), Hon'ble CESTAT has held that "Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
