2018 (11) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.2.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby he has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of lubrication preparations and were availing credit on inputs, capital goods and services. It was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. She further submitted that the entire demand along with interest was paid prior to the issue of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Gaurav Merchantiles Ltd.: 2005 (190) ELT 11 (Bom.) • CCE vs. Hodek Vibration Technologies P. Ltd.: 2016 (339) ELT 92 (Tri.-Mum.) • Aradhya Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCT: 2018-TIOL-2396-CESTAT-BANG. • Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018-TIOL-622-CESTAT-BANG. • Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (51) STR 418 (Tri.-Bang.) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce amount payable by the appellant. The appellant shall thereafter paid Rs. 5,941/- along with interest of Rs. 1,782/- vide challan dated 9.5.2018 and the appellant is not contesting the penalty of Rs. 5,941/-, which has also been confirmed by the Commissioner (A). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and p....