TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority could not have speculated about what the case against M/s. BPCL was, and what are the findings rendered against them. They ought to have been accepted and for what they are and once they do not contain any finding of the above nature, then, Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, was not attracted. The Tribunal rightly held that by mere imposition of penalty under Rule 173 Q, the inferences drawn by the adjudicating authority, cannot be sustained. Those were mere conjectures and surmises on the part of the adjudicating authority. Since the ingredients of Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules were not attracted, the Order-in-original was rightly set aside. We do not see how the substantial questions of law can be answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard, Registry has not placed the 2002 Appeal on board and possibly because it is disposed of. Whether it is disposed of by any reasoned order or by a non-speaking one is not also clear to us. 3 We proceed on the footing that there is no contrary order of this Court on any identical issue. The above questions have been termed as substantial questions of law by Ms. Shah. She submits that the supplier of inputs to the present respondent assessee was M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The asseessee is in the business of textiles. One of the inputs and which was acquired was sulfur. M/s. BPCL supplied the sulfur by clearing that product or goods at nil rate of excise duty. That was classified as falling under Schedule Item No.25.02 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der with intent to evade payment of duty. In the circumstances, the Tribunal's order suffers from non application of mind and should be set aside. 4 Mr. Prakash Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee supports the impugned order. He submits that the order may be not containing elaborate reasons, but the essential finding is that in the show cause notice issued to the present assessee, the conclusions recorded in the orders passed against M/s. BPCL, cannot be reopened or revisited. That was the attempt made in the Order-in-original, and, therefore, it is rightly set aside by the CESTAT. 5 We have perused the Appeal paper book including the impugned order. We have also perused the show cause cum demand notice. A copy of the show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
