TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-in-Original No. 09-11/DEM/DC/14-15, dated 6-5-2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Division, Jabalpur (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adjudicating Authority') disputing the following issues decided in the impugned order : (i) Denial of Cenvat credit of service tax of Rs. 4,72,454/- and recovery thereof, along with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and (ii) Imposition of penalty of Rs. 4,72,454/- under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. In the application for waiver from pre-deposit, the appellant has stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut subsequent SCN cannot be issued. (vi) That the adjudicating authority abuses the power delegated under while issuing subsequent show cause notice changing the period and charges levelled in the Original SCN. (vii) That the impugned Order passed by the adjudicating on time barred nature of SCN, hence entire proceedings is unwarranted and bad in law. (viii) That the appellant filed reply to all the SCN as issued by the adjudicating authority from time to time and appeared in personal hearing on 5-3-2014, but there is no discussion and finding in the impugned order. (ix) That the impugned order wrongly resorted longer period when normal period is available to revenue because issue is well known to the rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plained their case. 5. The appellant has prima facie made out a case for full wavier from pre- deposit. I, therefore, take up the appeal for decision on merit. 6. I have carefully examined the facts of the case, evidences available on records, defence submissions of the appellant, relevant provisions of law and judicial rulings. The main issue before me is whether the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,72,454/- or otherwise. 7. It is observed that the period and amount covered by the show cause notice decided by the impugned order is as below : Sr. No. SCN No. & Date Period Amount (Rs.) 1 V(73)03-26/DEM/13-14/6510, dated 3-9-2013 08/2008 to 03/2013 (amended to April, 2012-March,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout considering defence after issuance of 'Corrigendum'. In the case of Penguin Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II [2005 (185) E.L.T. 194 (Tri. - Mumbai)], the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the issue of corrigendum to show cause notice after personal hearing is not valid. The relevant Para 3(e) of this decision is reproduced below : Para 3(e) : In the facts and circumstance of this case we find that a prima facie case has been made out to come to conclusion that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the adjudicator and the decision impugned herein as arrived is required to be set aside with directions that the notices should be heard and defence reply/materials considered and thereafter a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter in accordance with law preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the adjudicating authority. 5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. 6. [Assent per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - I entirely agree with the view of my learned brother of remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsidering the issue. At the same time, I would also like to make a note that the appellate authority having considered and admitted that there is violation of principles of natural justice, himself should have sent the matter back to the lower authorities instead of deciding the matter on merits. This is a settled law. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in the above term....