9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2013 (T) S. Tax dated 19.04.2013. 2. When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ch. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate has filed a submission praying that the matter to be decided on the grounds of appeal taken in the appeal memorandum. 3. Heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the grounds of appeal put forth b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner. iv) Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider their plea that the show cause notice is time barred, that they did not suppress any facts and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. v) Commissioner (Appeals) passed a cryptic order and did not make an assiduous study of the records of the case. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkataraman, Partner of the appellant company. On this aspect, I find that the adjudicating authority rejected the credit on this aspect since the appellants were failed to submit any proof to the extent that these phones were used for the services for which they claimed. Further, I also find that the appellants are engaged in the activity of sale of Motor Vehicles which does not come under purview ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d are not maintaining separate input accounts, the appellants are required to follow sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. As the appellants have failed to exercise any of the options given under the provisions of law, I cannot extend any benefit to them at this juncture. I also find that the appellants failed to produce sufficient/substantial evidence in support of their contention th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
