TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and they have only considered ST-3 returns and recorded the finding that the assessee did not have sufficient balance in their CENVAT register. The issue decided in the case of CCE vs. Bill Forge Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20010/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20349/2019 - Dated:- 10-4-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. T. Jayadev Kumar, Accounts Manager For the appellant Mr. K. Murali, AR for the respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 1.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the Order-in-Original except setting aside of the penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and penalty. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,82,448/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of ₹ 91,224/- being 50% of the amount confirmed under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994 for non-filing of Service Tax Returns for the said period. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal but dropped the penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Rule 7C. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Shri T. Jayadev Kumar, Accountants Manager of the company represented the appellant and submitted that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have reversed the wrongly availed CENVAT credit on being pointed out by the audit before the issuance of show-cause notice. Further, I find that the appellant has filed the ER-1 returns along with the reply to the show-cause notice wherein they have shown sufficient balance in their register till the date of reversal but the same was not considered by both the authorities below and they have only considered ST-3 returns and recorded the finding that the assessee did not have sufficient balance in their CENVAT register. Further, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
