TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Sh. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, AR - for Appellant None - for Respondent-Assessee ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide which, while upholding demand of duty, he has set aside the penalty imposed upon the respondent, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Sh. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Id. AR appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent-assessee. 2. As per facts on record, a team of Anti-Evasion Branch of Noida visited the premises of the party on 09.09.2010. During the course of checking, it was noticed that the unit had cleared finished goods valued at ₹ 1,09,83,729/-, during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the same should not be appropriated. b) Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 73,391/- availed by them on the basis of ineligible invoices issued by M/s Mardia Alloys Delhi should not be denied to them. As the above mentioned amount has already been reversed/deposited by them, why the same should not be appropriated. c) Interest at the applicable rates on the cenvat credit of ₹ 73,391/- should not demanded as applicable during the relevant time. d) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2.3 The above Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide impugned order under which demand of Central Excise Duty ₹ 10,55,734/-, demand of Cenvat cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed as under:- From the case record and documents available on record as well as submitted by the appellants, I observe that neither such certificate issued by the Regional Authority was produced before the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer, nor at the time of adjudication. The appellants have also not submitted copies of certificate confirming installation and use of goods in the factory or premises of the holder of the said certificate. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I reached on the conclusion that the appellants have not complied with the condition stipulated under said notification 34/2006 to the Hotels under SFIS are not entitled for exemption from duty. In view of the above facts, I uphold the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
