9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of input services. A show cause notice was issued on 19.11.2008 demanding a sum of Rs. 29,10,640/- by way of reversal of Cenvat credit. The assessment order issued on 31.12.2009 was carried in appeal up to the CESTAT, which, by order dated 11.03.2015, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. Pursuant thereto, the order in original dated 27.08.2015 was issued. This order was challenged in W.P.No.19462 of 2016. As per the order in original, the petitioner was held to be ineligible for Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,86,628/- and the petitioner was further held liable to pay interest and nominal penalty in respect thereof. By order dated 01.08.2018, the writ petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to present an appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter was treated as a matter under litigation. Consequently, he submitted that clause 124 of the Scheme becomes applicable and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to 70% deduction because the amount payable is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. 4. In support of the contention that the amounts mentioned in the show cause notice cannot be taken into consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt Limited v. Union of India and others in W.P.No.818 of 2020, judgment dated 05.11.2020. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Jain v. Union of India and others in W.P.No.1774 of 2020, judgment dated 22.11.2022. He concluded his su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner adopted the sum specified in the order in original dated 27.08.2015 as the amount on which the relief was calculated. 7. By the appellate order, the appellate authority concluded that the petitioner is entitled to Cenvat credit under three heads and, as regards the fourth head, a remand was made. In those circumstances, the petitioner was justified in classifying the matter as a matter in which litigation is pending. The petitioner also proceeded to adopt the amount specified in the order in original as the amount on which the relief is to be calculated. The petitioner cannot be faulted on this ground because this amount is higher than the amount held to be payable by the petitioner by the appellate authority. 8. Clause 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
