2019 (4) TMI 892

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant Mr. K. Murali, AR for the respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 1.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the Order-in-Original except setting aside of the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 7C. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that during the course of audit of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....448/- during the period from April 2010 to March 2015. The appellant agreed to the audit's objection and reversed Rs. 1,82,448/- vide journal voucher dated 1.8.2015 but did not pay interest and penalty on wrongly availed credit in terms of Section 75 and 76(3) of Finance Act, 1994. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 16.10.2015 was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 1,82,448/- for the period Oc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v Kumar, Accountants Manager of the company represented the appellant and submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by wrongly considering the records produced by the appellant. He further submitted that the original authority has verified only ST-3 returns and has come to the conclusion that there is no balance in the CENVAT register instead of consid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... • CCE vs. Pear Insulation Ltd.: 2012 (27) STR 337 (Kar. • Paha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC) • Noolani Tex Prints vs. CCE: 2007 (9) TMI 96-CESTAT, New Delhi • Sumeet Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2003 (10) EMTI 60- CESTAT, Mumbai • CCE vs. Vhadarakanta Dyeing & Printing Mills: 2010 (12) TMI 70 -Guj-HC 5. On the other....