2007 (10) TMI 492

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The appellant has challenged the order dated 28-6-2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) upholding the order-in-original by which the Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 6,66,261/- was disallowed and ordered to be recovered while imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The learned Counsel for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to fall under sub-heading 4818.13, had passed that order. He pointed from paragraph 4.6 of the referral order dated 13-8-2007 in Service Tax Appeal No. 345 of 2006 and other cognate matters that for the reasons given in that order, the Division Bench had expressed that it did not agree with the interpretation given by the Tribunal in the earlier decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Guja....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... referral order, which can be said to be laying down a ratio. Therefore, such a difference of opinion expressed in a referral order will not be viewed in the same way as two earlier conflicting decisions are to be viewed for the purpose of deciding whether there is a debatable issue to warrant a waiver or partial waiver of pre-deposit. There cannot be any hard and fast rule or formula in cases of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g of the adjudicating authority in paragraph 7 of the order-in-original to the effect that the place of removal in the instant case would be 'factory gate' irrespective of the fact that the goods were sold by the assessee on FOR destination basis and that the property got transferred to buyer at the port. The CBEC has by its circular dated 23-8-2007 (No. 97/8/2007) clarified in paragraph 8.2 that ....