TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2004 and not Rule 15(2). However, whether there is suppression of fact or otherwise the matter in the assessee s case M/S FASCEL LIMITED (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED) , BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED CMTS AHMEDABAD VERSUS C.S.T., AHMEDABAD [ 2017 (1) TMI 1283 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has been remanded to the Adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is apparent error in mentioning the Rule 15(2) whereas Rule 15(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should have been invoked according to which equal amount of service tax to be imposed as penalty under Rule 15(4). He submits that the Adjudicating Authority has elaborately discussed that there is suppression of fact on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, the penalty under Rule 15(4) of Cenvat C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni Tyres (India) 2010 (255) ELT 264 (Tri.Mum) Shaila Crown P Ltd 2004 (175) ELT 571 (Tri. Del) 2.1 He also submits that against the same impugned order M/s BSNL s appeal No ST/307/2010 has been disposed of by way of remand to decide whether there is suppression of fact on the part of the appellant or not. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. 4. We have car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
