TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th. It is found that the adjudicating authority has not touched upon rule 6(3D) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 while deciding the eligibility of the exemption notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The main defence of the appellant is on Rule 6(3D) but since the same was not considered by the adjudicating authority and no independent finding was given, the impugned orders are non speaking therefore the same are not sustainable. Matters remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh de-novo order within a period of three months from the date of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No.10308-10309 of 2021 - A/10003-10004/2022 - Dated:- 6-1-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of amount of ₹ 16,46,40,356/- (at the rate of 6%) under Rule 6 (3) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They have also availed the benefit of notification No. 30/2004-CE as amended and cleared goods without payment of duty while simultaneously availed the Cenvat Credit on the goods. Subsequently the appellant paid an amount equal to 6% of value of goods treating such goods as exempted (availing benefit of 30/2004-CE) under rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is the contention of the department that payment of an amount equal to 6% of value of goods, treating the goods as exempted is wrong as conditions to Notification No. 30/2004-CE is breached as soon as the assessees starts to avail the Cenvat credit. Thus, it is clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of 6% is made it will amount to non availment of Cenvat credit and the condition of the notification stands complied with. We find that the adjudicating authority has not touched upon rule 6(3D) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 while deciding the eligibility of the exemption notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. We find that the main defence of the appellant is on Rule 6(3D) but since the same was not considered by the adjudicating authority and no independent finding was given, the impugned orders are non speaking therefore the same are not sustainable. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh de-novo order within a period of three months from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
