2018 (6) TMI 1249 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Reversal of CENVAT credit – writing off of raw materials/packing materials – case of Revenue is that admittedly the order of the Assistant Commissioner, in the operative part, has nowhere specified dropping of the demand in respect of reversal of Cenvat credit in respect of written off of raw materials and packing list – Held that:- The adjudicating authority, may verify the figures again. If according to the ld. Advocate, the figures are correct, the adjudicating authority would pick up the same figures again and there is no harm in verification of the same – It is also a fact that in the operative part of the order, the original adjudicating authority has not referred to dropping of demand. In such a scenario, I deem it fit to uphold the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has remanded the matter for fresh verification of the figures.
–
Penalty – Held that:- It is not a case of any mala fide and the said demand stan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
demand on the said count by observing that the assessee had reversed the appropriate Cenvat credit. However, the original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand to the tune of around ₹ 14,359/- on the calculation basis along with imposition of penalty. 3. The said order was appealed against by the Revenue as also by the assessee before Commissioner (Appeals). While disposing of the Revenue s appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Assistant Commissioner had not verified the factual position and has not properly quantified the reversal. He also observed that in the operative part of the order, the original adjudicating authority has not mentioned about the dropping of the demand, which renders the same as a non-speaking order. Accordingly, he remanded the matter on the said count for re-verification. As regards, the assessee s appeal, he upheld the duty confirmation to the extent of ₹ 14,359/- along with penalty. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
off of raw materials and packing list. He submits that even if the Assistant Commissioner has gone by the report by the Supdt., the assessee is not at a disadvantageous position if the said figures are again verified. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, I agree with the ld. AR that the adjudicating authority, may verify the figures again. If according to the ld. Advocate, the figures are correct, the adjudicating authority would pick up the same figures again and there is no harm in verification of the same. It is also a fact that in the operative part of the order, the original adjudicating authority has not referred to dropping of demand. In such a scenario, I deem it fit to uphold the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has remanded the matter for fresh verification of the figures. 7. As regards the demand of ₹ 14,359/-, the appellant had not contested the same and the only challenge is to imposition of penalty. I agree with the ld.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =