TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry and the same is evident from the intimation letter dated 27.08.2014 and the calculation sheets attached thereto - the question of paying amount as per Rule 6(3)(i) does not arise in law and the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20303/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20832 / 2018 - Dated:- 20-6-2018 - Hon'ble Mr. S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. N. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. P. Murthy Asst. Commissioner ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who also rejected the appeal; hence the present appeal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering and appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that both the authorities have not appreciated that the appellant had not availed any CENVAT credit attributable to trading i.e. exempted services which was specifically stated in the intimation filed by the appellant on 27.08.2014 with the department. Further, the appellant also informed the department regarding this fact in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 27.08.2014 that he will be availing CENVAT credit only on the common input services which are relating to manufacture and has accordingly availed by following the formula as per Rule 6(3A). In respect of his submission he relied upon the following decisions: (i) Cranes Structural Engineers vs. CCE, 2017 (347) ELY 112 (Tri.Bang.) (ii) Josts Engg. Co Lted vs. CCE 2015 (320) ELT 157 (Tri-Mum.) (iii) Aster Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE, 2016 (43) STR 411 (Tri-Hyd.) (iv) CCE vs. CESTAT, 2015 (323) ELT 323 (Mad.) (v) CCE vs. ICMC Corporation Ltd. 2015 (315) ELT 388 (Mad.) 7. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 8. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
