9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [for short 'The CESTAT'] in the Appeal No. E/11774/2017SM, dated 24th November, 2017. 3. The facts giving rise to this tax appeal may be summarized as under: 3.1 The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing of trousers in the name of M/s. Zedex Clothing, having its head office at Ahmedabad. It is the case of the appellant that it procures inputs from the DTA as well as 100% EOU units. The company also avails the CENVAT credit on the duty paid invoices of the inputs and capital goods received by it under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the course of the audit, it was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A(5) of Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) I order to recover interest at the prescribed rate from M/s. Zedex Clothing Private Limited, situated at 132/2, Balaji Estate, Isanpur Narol Highway, Behind Monty Hotel, Isanpur Ahmedabad, Gujarat382443 on the said wrongly availed Cenvat Credit in terms of provision of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944. (iii) I impose penalty Rs. 1,91,014/ (Rs. One Lakh Ninety One Thousand Fourteen Only) M/s. Zedex Clothing Private Limited, situated at 132/2. Balaji Estate, Isanpur Narol Highway, Behind Monty Hotel, Isanpur Ahmedabad, Gujarat 382443 under the provision of Rule 15(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Credit of Rs. 3,82,028/ was not wrongly availed by the appellant? 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal committed any error in passing the impugned order. 6. The principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that at no point of time, he received the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is sought to be argued that although there is a acknowledgment receipt on record evidencing delivery of the Order-in-Original, yet the signature on the said acknowledgment receipt is of none of the employees of the company. Besides the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been controverted by the appellant. Therefore, it is fact on record that the adjudication order was sent to the appellant through registered post on 19.05.2015 and the same was delivered at the premises of the appellant on 25.05.2015. In that circumstance, the date of received of adjudication order is 25.05.2015. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the appellant is with a delay of almost 15 months therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal as time-barred." 8. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, it is difficult for us to take the view that the questions as proposed are substantial questions of law falling for the consideration of this Court. 9. In the aforesaid view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
