9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viz., Samuel Nagadesi & Associates, by way of email dt.26.12.2024. Despite notice, no response has been received from either the Advocate or from the Appellant themselves. We also observe that this is an old matter pending since long and has been repeatedly adjourned on 11 occasions in the past. In fact, on 26.04.2023, the adjournment was made by way of last chance but thereafter, again despite allowing adjournment due to the request from the Advocate for the Appellant, it was again adjourned. The last Order dt.10.05.2024 makes it abundantly clear that no further adjournment would be granted and that the issue will be decided on merits with or without their presence since the issue pertains to the year 2012. Accordingly, we now proceed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nputs used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods. Further, she has also observed that by availing Cenvat credit of Rs.23,48,278/- on capital goods exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods, the appellant had contravened the provisions of Rule 6(4) of CCR. Accordingly, the availment of the said Cenvat credits were in contravention of rules cited and are liable to recover the same under Rule 14 of CCR. 4. In so far as non-fulfilment of requirement under Rule 6(2) of CCR is concerned, where the inputs were used both in the manufacture of dutiable goods as well as exempted goods, after going through the submissions and evidence, the Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant has not fulfilled all the conditions requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... batement of the duty actually paid on exempted goods and the only ground of the department is that she should have not allowed this abatement and the appellant could have themselves filed for refund of the same. We find from facts of the case that it is not denied that the duty has actually been paid by the appellant on the exempted goods. In a given factual matrix, the Adjudicating Authority has only allowed the abatement/adjustment of said duty against overall duty liability of the appellant. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly allowed the abatement and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order on this count also. However, we find that the demand is not specifically quantified in the order. Therefore, the total dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
