TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant for not receiving the notice of personal hearing given by Commissioner (Appeals), that too, prior to the pronouncement of this order in appeal dated 30.04.2021 are opined acceptable. It is the settled law that mere issue or dispatch of notice is not the proof of service of the said notice. Hence cannot be held to be received by the recipient in absence of such proof of service. There is no denial apparent on record about appellant opting out from the Scheme of Cenvat Credit on 31.03.2016 with the reversal of credit lying with them at that time. There is also no apparent denial to the fact that the production initiated again by the appellant in December, 2016 - bare perusal of Rule 3 Sub Rule (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 makes i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had filed an appeal against the said order before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order No.001-18-21-22 dated 30.04.2021 has allowed the Department s appeal. Still being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellant and Ms.Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. 3. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for appellant that Commissioner (A) has passed the order without considering the defense submissions of the appellant, as were made before the original adjudicating authority and without giving the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The said order is prayed to be set aside. 4. While rebutting the submissions ld. DR has mentioned that ld. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice thereof upon the appellant. The appellant was very much responding since the issuance of the SCN. He marked his presence before Original Adjudicating Authority as well. Accordingly, the submission of the appellant for not receiving the notice of personal hearing given by Commissioner (Appeals), that too, prior to the pronouncement of this order in appeal dated 30.04.2021 are opined acceptable. It is the settled law that mere issue or dispatch of notice is not the proof of service of the said notice. Hence cannot be held to be received by the recipient in absence of such proof of service. I accordingly, hold that the order under challenge suffers violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, about CBEC Board vide Circular No.990/40/2014-CX-8 dated 19.11.2014 is acceptable. The circular has clarified as follows:- The purpose of the amendment made by Notification No.21/2014-C.E. (N.T.), dated 11.07.2014 is to ensure that after the issue of a document under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, credit is taken for the first time within six months of the issue of the document (vide Notification No.6/2015-CE (NT) dated 1.3.2015, the period available for taking credit is 1 year). Once this condition is met, the limitation has no further application. It is, therefore, clarified that in each for the three situations described above pertaining to Rule 4 (7), Rule 3 (5B) or Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004, the limitation of six months/ One year w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
