TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndhra, Advocate for the appellant Shri P. Juneja, Authorized Representative for the respondent ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. The appellants are availing the benefit of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs as also of service tax paid on the Input Services. The provisions of Rule 4 (7) of Cenvat Credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ules would not apply to them. 3. However, the said plea of the appellant was not accepted by Original Adjudicating Authority, who denied the credit and confirmed the demands along with interest and imposition of penalty. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders and hence the present two appeals. 4. We find from the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich clearly covers the issue in their favour. This attitude of Commissioner (Appeals) reflects on his pre-determined mind to reject the appeals in a mechanical manner, thus putting the litigant into difficulty, apart from the increasing the burden and pendency of litigation at the higher level. 5. Having expressed our anguish, we note that the issue is no more res Integra. Reliance can be placed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly to the cenvatable invoices issued prior to said date. The other decisions relied upon by the Ld. Advocate are also to the same effect but multiplying the precedent decisions would not make a difference as it is a settled law. Further, not only various Tribunals' decisions but Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in case of Global Ceramics Private Limited and Ors. vs. The Principal Commissioner of Cent....