TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its merits and was rejected on the ground that neither Section 84 nor Section 85 of the Act empowered the filing of such cross objections. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant is registered as provider of works Contract Service with the department and the main activity of the appellant is construction of residential complex. The appellant was duly discharging its tax liability and also filling the returns. During the course of Audit the officers noticed that the appellant had taken ineligible Cenvat credit of Rs.4,39,857/-. Pursuant to the audit, a Show Cause Notice was issued proposing, inter-alia, to demand the Service Tax on such ineligible Cenvat credit taken along with applicable interest invoking the extended period as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order and allowing the Revenue's appeal imposed penalty of Rs.72,150/- on the appellant under Rule 15(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Act. However the Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the request of the appeal for restoring the Cenvat credit is liable to be rejected on the grounds that neither Section 84 nor Section 85 of the Act which deals with "appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals)", have provisions like Section 35 E(4) of the Central Excise Act or Section 86(4) of the Act empowering the other party to assail the impugned order by filing cross objection memorandum notwithstanding the fact that the other party may not have filed any appeal against the impugned order. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeared for the Respondent and reiterated the findings in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. We have heard both sides, perused the records and the case laws submitted as relied upon. 6. We find that a similar issue came up for consideration by the Tribunal as can be seen from its decision in Eveready Industries India Ltd v CCE, Meerut, 2013 (31) STR 683 (Tri-Del), where the matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. Ordinarily we would have adopted the same course of action, but the facts and circumstances of this case merits our intervention. 7. Indisputably, the appellant had not conceded the matter on merits and thus the payment made was only to give quietus to the issue. The Department chose to prefer an app....