PCP Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Mumbai
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 789 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 21-6-2018
Appeal No. ST/86239/2018 – A/86776/2018
Service Tax
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate for the appellant
Shri Atul Sharma, (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the Order-in- Appeal No. PK/200/APPEAL THANE/TH/2017-18/1612 dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Mumbai confirming order of duty demand, interest and penalty passed by the adjudicating authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Service tax Audit III, Mumbai, Appellant has approached this Tribunal for relief on the ground
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Sharma, applicability of sub-rule 3AA to the appellant's case, since adjudication order was passed on 15.09.2016 i.e. much after the applicability of sub-rule 3AA is analysed.
3. Before giving any finding on this, it is imperative to have a look at the bare taxes of the rule which reads as under:-
“(3AA) Where a manufacturer or a provider of output service has failed to exercise the option under sub-rule (3) and follow the procedure provided under sub-rule (3A), the Central Excise Officer competent to adjudicate a case based on amount of CENVAT credit involved, may allow such manufacturer or provider of output service to follow the procedure and pay the amount referred to in clause (ii) of sub-rule (3), calculated for each of the months,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =