9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n input service distributor (ISD). Alleging that the credit was inadmissible, Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of the credit with interest and proposal for penalty; personal penalty on Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan also proposed. On adjudication the demand was confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty on the appellant company and personal penalty of Rs. 5.00 Lakh on Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed a consolidated appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who, in turn, rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 2. Ld. Advocate, Sh. Jigar Shah for the appellant submits that the appellant had rightly availed cenvat credit of the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He submits that merely that the authorized signatory had not filed a separate appeal itself cannot debar him from challenging the personal penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Benu Ramesh Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - 2014 (305) ELT 375 (Bom). It is his contention that rejection of appeal filed by Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, unsustainable in law. On the issue of distribution of the credit only infavour of their Silvasa Unit instead of proportionately distributing credit between the Silvasa and Ghaziabad Unit, the Ld. Advocate submits that no such restriction could be read into the Provisions d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation is forthcoming from Show Cause Notice. As far as distribution of credit in favour of silvasa unit is concerned, I find force in the contention of Ld. Advocate for the appellant in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in ECOF Industries (supra). Regarding the appeal filed by the authorized signatory Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan is concerned, there is no dispute of the fact that initially the appellant had filed consolidated appeal challenging the order confirming the demand of duty and penalty against the appellant company and also personal penalty on the authorized signatory Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan. Later during the course of hearing of stay application before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) they realized that two separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
