TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - E/20306/2018-SM, E/20978/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20167 - 20168/2019 - Dated:- 15-2-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K. T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) Mr. K. Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed these two appeals against the impugned order dated 8.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has partially modified the Orders-in-Original but he has set aside the demand for the year 2009-10; 2010-11; and 2011-2012 (up to 13.6.2012) and confirmed the demand for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 along with interest and penalty. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). On these allegations, two show-cause notices for different period cited above were issued to the appellant and after following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who modified the original order. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. 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 and is also contrary to the provisions of Rule 6. She further submitted that the demand of 5% / 6% of the total value of exempted service under Rule 6(3)(i) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCT: 2019-TIOL-260-CESTAT-BANG. 5.1 She further submitted that once appellant has reversed the proportionate credit, the question of payment of interest and penalty does not arise. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has not exercised the option under Rule 6(3) of CCR and in the absence of an option exercised, the lower authorities have rightly quantified the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR, 2004. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have already reversed the proportionate CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) and therefore, he is not requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
