TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no demand, the question of pre-deposit does not arise at all. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.07.2023, passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata Bench, in so far as the direction of making payment of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,50,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand Only), being 10% of the contested amount of Rs. 35,34,992/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Two Only), does not stand to scrutiny and is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 14.07.2023, shall be registered and decided as per law after providing opportunity of hearing to both parties - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND For the Appellant : Mr. S Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is to be disallowed. The appellant was directed to submit reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and to appear before the respondent No. 3 for personal hearing, failing which, the respondent No. 3 would decide the case on basis of available records. The appellant submitted a detailed reply, justifying his stance, relating to the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 30.07.2013 and inter alia, submitted that Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, is specific and unequivocal to the effect that an invoice issued by a manufacturer is sufficient to claim CENVAT Credit. The appellant made a prayer before the respondent No. 3 to drop the proceedings, sought to be initiated against him. The appellant also appeared before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside and quashed, with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to afford opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to pass a fresh speaking order in the concerned appeal. Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, and produced all the relevant records and made submissions in support of his case, but the appellate authority did not consider the submissions and vide Order-In- Appeal No. 57/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/17 dated 14.09.2017, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 by setting aside and quashing the OIO dated 29.01.2014, passed by the respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved of the order dated 14.09.2017, the writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1308 of 2018 was preferred and came up for hearing on 19.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tead of filing a revision, the appellant had filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Kolkata Bench, which was not even maintainable. 8. Heard Mr S Chetia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr S C Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC. Submissions of the Appellant- 9. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that vide the impugned Order-In-Appeal (OIA) dated 14.09.2017, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-In-Original (OIO) dated 29.01.2014, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Vide OIO dated 29.01.2014, the proceeding sought to be initiated against the appellant through demand-cum- show cause notice was dropped. The Commissioner (Appeals) has only set aside the OIO, without confirming the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14.07.2023, passed by the learned CESTAT in Excise Appeal No. 7905/2018, directing the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand Only), as pre-deposit for admission of appeal. Submissions of the Respondents- 11. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1308/2013, reflects that a revision is maintainable under Section 35 EE of the CEA against the appellate order dated 14.09.2017, before the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance. The appellant, thereafter, preferred to withdraw the writ petition and was given liberty to file a revision before the appropriate authority as provided under the statute. The appellant, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endorsement in the invoices issued by the manufacturer and availed CENVAT Credit of Rs. 35,34,992/, on the basis of those endorsed copies of invoices. Consideration of Submissions - 12. We have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. Vide order dated 17.07.2017, in WP(C) No. 3527/2017, the orders dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure-VI) and the Corrigendum dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure-VII) were set aside and quashed with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to afford hearing to the appellant and to pass a fresh order in the concerned appeal. 13. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 14.09.2017, set aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2014 and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. A close scrutiny of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
