TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Appellants Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh (Dy. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is: Whether the appellants, engaged both in the manufacturing and trading during the period 2011-12 and 2012-13, are required to reverse any amount under Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? 2. The brief facts of the case are that, as per the show cause notice date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanation-1 and Rule 6(3D) of the Rules, the value is determined at 10% of the trading turnover, and accordingly @ 5% the amount was worked out at Rs. 2,64,284/- for the Financial Year 2011-12 and Rs. 3,85,179/- @ 6% for the Financial Year 2012-13. On being so pointed out the appellant reversed the said amounts vide Cenvat Credit Register Debit Entry on 03/12/2013. They also paid amount of interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposed to demand Rs. 6,49,463/- with further proposal to appropriate the same as already reversed and further to demand interest with proposal to appropriate from the amount already paid for by appellant was also proposed. 3. The SCN was adjudicated as the appellants failed to submit any reply, nor appeared on the date fixed i.e. 16th February, 2015, 26th February, 2015 and 10th March, 2015. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emand so that they can lead evidence before the Adjudicating Authority. It is further stated that as the notice for hearing was received on the Evening of 26th February, 2015 (on the date fixed) and further they could not receive the notice dated 14/03/2015. As such there is no deliberate latches on their part, and there are sufficient reasons for which they could not appear. 7. The Learned A.R. ....