TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has reversed the proportionate credit as per Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/21733/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20683/2018 - Dated:- 23-4-2018 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri R J NAYAK, Advocate - For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 14/09/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Fabric Screen labels' falling under Chapter 58079090, 'Fabric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure and conditions therein. The Department demanded 6% of the value of the traded goods along with interest by invoking the extended period and after following the due process, the original authority vide Order-in-original dt. 24/02/2016 confirmed the demand of ₹ 11,06,159/- along with interest and equal penalty by invoking the extended period. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the impugned order does not take cognizance of the fact and mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied upon the following decisions:- I. Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE [1996(81) ELT 3 (SC)] ii. CCE Vs. jai Balaji Industries ltd. [2017(356) ELT A 48 (Chhattisgarh) iii. UOI Vs. Secure Meters Ltd. [2017(354) ELT A 32 (Raj.)] IV. Cranes Structural Engineers Vs. CCE [2017(347) ELT 112(Tri. Ban.)] V. Aster Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(43) STR 411 (T. Hyd.)] VI. Tata Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(42) STR 290 (Tri. Mum.)] VII. Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(40) STR 381 (Tri. Mum.)] 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that as per the observation of the learned Commissioner(Appeals), the appellant has failed to submit the worksheet showing that they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercised by manufacturer has been prescribed, in the present case, the appellant has not followed the same. However, it is on record that they have already reversed an amount claimed to be proportionate. It is also pertinent to record that this has been done by the appellant even before the issue of the show cause notice in this case. We are of the considered view that the failure of the appellant to follow the procedure perfectly should not come in the way of extending the substantial benefit of proportionate reversal. However, we find that in the order passed by the lower authority, he has not given any finding as to whether the reversal already made satisfies the test of proportionate reversal in terms of quantum of reversal. Hence, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
