9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) Shri A. K. Biswas, Suptd. (AR) for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per Bench: Both, the assessee and the Department have challenged the impugned order dated 20.08.2009, wherein the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Shillong has confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,99,111/- alongwith interest payable under Section 75 of the Act and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns. 4. The department had conducted the audit at the premises of the assessee and alleged the wrongful availment of the CENVAT Credit, for the assessment year 2007-08 and accordingly issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.01.2009. Reply to the same was filed by the assessee, to the department clarifying all the issues raised in the Show Cause Notice. 5. It is the submission of the assessee tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us that the allegation of department of excess credit availed is imaginary and not supported by any evidence and finally argued that they had Rs. 54,637/- unutilized CENVAT Credit as on 31.03.2008. He prayed to set aside the impugned order. 6. The Department Representative on the other hand argued that on analysis of the returns filed by the assessee, it revealed that they had short paid the Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004. He sought for quashing of the impugned order and to allow their appeal by way of enhancing the service tax liability on the assessee. 7. We have heard the counsels/representatives of both sides and also perused the appeal records. In our considered view, the Commissioner had not considered several aspects and evidences on record. The impugned order is accordingly liable to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
