Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Amrit Bottlers Pvt Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Lucknow on 16 October, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No.II
Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.30/Commr./LKO/ST/2014-15 dated
24/12/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax,
Lucknow)
M/s Amrit Bottlers Pvt. Ltd., .....Appellant
(119-A, Faizabad Road, Near Indira Bridge, Lucknow)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise &
CGST, Lucknow ....Respondent
(7A, Ashok Marg, Lucknow) APPEARANCE:
None, for the Appellant Smt Chitra Srivastava, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO.70743/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 14 July, 2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 October, 2025 SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.30/Commr./LKO/ST/2014-15 dated 24/12/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. By the impugned order following has been held:-
"ORDER
1. Service Tax of Rs. 1,42,43 376/- including Ed. Cess and SHE. Cess; not paid by the party, the Jetails of which are given in the Tables above is hereby confirmed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. 1994, end the rest of the demand, proposed in SCN, is dropped as per detailed discussion of this order in preceeding paras.
Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 2 I appropriate Rs 35.44.872/ deposited by the party against the above referred demand.
2. The party is hereby required to pay Interest on the unpaid service tax amount of Rs.1,42,43,376/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. I hereby impose a Penalty of Rs.1,42,43,376/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for suppressing the facts with intent to evade payment of service tax.
4. I hereby impose a Penalty of Rs. 10,000/-under Section 77(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 for not maintaining proper records relating to service tax.
5. I hereby impose penalty Rs.2,000 under section 70(1) of Finance Act 1994."
2.1 Appellant is engaged in providing (i) Management, Maintenance or Repair Services (ii) Renting of Immovable Property Services and (iii) Cleaning Activity, which are taxable service in terms of Section 65 (64) read with 65(105)(zzg). Section 65(90a) read with 65(105)(zzzz) and Section 65 (24b) read with 65 (105) (zzzd) of the Finance Act 1994. They are registered with the department for payment of service tax in respect of services provided.
2.2 Acting on the information that the party was being legal owner of „Riverside Mall‟ Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow were engaged in rendering Management, Maintenance or Repair Services, Renting of Immovable Property Services and Cleaning Activity but they were not discharging service tax properly on the rent received from their tenants including the Future Group, the owner of Big Bazaar. The premises of appellant was visited on 09.01.2013, at the time of visit Shri Dinesh Chand Katiyar, Authorized Signatory of appellant was present and stated that the said mall is in operation since Nov‟2007 and there are seven tenants as follows:-
1. Inox Leizure
2. Future Group (Big Bazaar)
3. Barbeque Nation Hospitality
4. MV Entertainment (Zero Degree) Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 3
5. Main Land China (Suryans Farming)
6. Noushijan Restaurant (P) Ltd
7. Barista Coffee Company Ltd.
2.3 It was also informed that they receive rent as per lease agreement entered with their tenants and they had submitted ST-3 regularly, as some of tenants have not provided them the amount leviable on the rental charges and the same have not been paid the tax to the department. It was assured that whatever short payment of service tax the party had made the same will be discharged alongwith interest soon to the department.
2.4 Shri Katiyar furnished some documents like balance sheet Profit & Loss A/c of the party for the F.Y. 2010-11, ST-3 returns for the FY 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, Agreement copy between the party and its tenants Barista coffee, Sanchi Hotel Pvt Ltd., sample rental bill issued by the party, ledger account of water tax and house tax S. tax calculation chart of the party and seizure report of Income Tax Department dated 18-12-2012.
The other documents required for investigation were subsequently procured by the department through a letter dated 13-03-2013.
2.5 Appellant informed vide letter dated 05.04.2013 that their tenants are members of Retail Association of India which is litigating the matter regarding taxability of rental of immovable property services under Finance Act 1994 before Hon‟ble Supreme Court and Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has clarified that liability of service tax till 30th Sept 2011 had to be discharged by the tenants in 50% in three equal installments and remaining 50% in the form of surety.
2.6 Shri Katiyar vide his letter dated 14-10-2013 has stated that M/s MV. entertainment, one of their tenants at the said mall, are neither a member of the Retailers Association of India nor a party to the dispute. With regard to M/s Future, he stated that Future group have not provided them with any information regarding the outstanding s. tax dues till 30-09-2011 which stands at Rs 56,18,215/-. However, he stated that M/s Inox Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 4 Leisure Ltd had deposited the entire service tax due till 30-09- 2011 but Shri Katiyar didn't provide this office with the payment particulars in relation to the payment made by M/s Inox Leisure Ltd in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction in Civil Appeal No. 8390 of 2011.
2.7 After completion of the investigation from the ST-3 return filed for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 following has been observed:-
Financial Management, Renting of Cleaning Gross Service tax paid year maintenance immovable services receipt In cash Through Total S. or repair property CENVAT Tax paid service 2007-08 0 5332584 0 5332584 3795 655313 659108 (Oct'07- Mar'08) 2008-09 0 22683084 0 22683084 8276 2098563 2106839 2009-10 0 13269852 0 13269852 0 1407594 1407594 2010-11 10134534 23827136 7249284 41210954 0 1440203 1440203 2011-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 As per the Rental income ledger account submitted by the party for the Financial Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 received from tenants is detailed in table below:- (Amount in Rs) F.Y. Rental income Parking Electricity Rent for Gross received from charges reimbursem hoarding amount tenants ent received 2007- 5332584 0 4500 0 5337084 08 2008- 26710381 636690 275034 115500 27737605 09 2009- 33525177 638608 958059 750000 35871844 10 2010- 32129898 2571993 1631140 2225600 38558631 11 2011- 34619300 2645581 2142067 2250000 41656948 12 2.9 From Cenvat credit ledger following is observed:-
(Amount in Rs) Financial Year Total Credit Total credit Credit utilized (as availed as per availed/taken as per ST-3 returns) ledgers per ST-3 returns (1) (2) (3) 2007-08 1593823 1593823 655313 2008-09 2104480 2105118 2098563 2009-10 358023 1881179 1407596 2010-11 260656 18277 1440200 2011-12 47488 0 0 Gross Total 4364470 5598397 5601672 Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 5 2.10 From perusal of the above, it is observed that appellant has utilized the credit in excess of Rs.12,37,202/- over and above the amount in the credit ledger.
2.11 Further, it is observed that from the balance Sheet following is observed:-
F.Y. Revenue from operation Other Income Total Income Rent Amenity CAM Misc received Fees Charges receipt /business received income 2007-08 5337084 -- 1821559 270992 7429635 2008-09 27727955 6756360 5116282 80800 39681397 2009-10 35871844 8445450 6727446 73773 51118513 2010-11 38558631 10134540 6938645 38000 55669816 2011-12 41656949 10134540 7213131 8000 59012620 2.12 On the basis of above, revenue authorities found that appellant have short paid service tax as follows:-
F.Y. Gross income Rate of S. Tax S. Tax S. Tax Short as per Balance (incl Ed cess & payable paid (as payment/ sheet SHEd cess) per ST- 3) Excess payment (-
/+)
(a) (d) (e) (f) (g)
2007-08 7429635 12.36% 9,18,303 6,59,108 -2,59,195
2008-09 ( 35744205 12.36% 44,17,984 21,06,839 -27,16,676
April 08 to
Feb. 09)
2008-09 3937192* 10.30% 4,05,531
(March 09)
2009-10 51118513 10.30% 52,65,207 14,07,594 -38,57,613
2010-11 55669816 10.30% 5733991 14,40,203 -4293788
2011-12 59012620 10.30% 6078300 0 -6078300
Total 212911981 22819316 5613744 -17205572
2.13 Accordingly, show cause notice dated 23.10.2013 was issued to the appellant, asking them to show cause as to why-
"i. Service tax of Rs. 1,84,42,774/- [Rupees One Crore Eighty Four Lakhs Fourty Two thousands Seven hundred and Seventy Four only) including Ed. Cess and S.H. Ed. Cess, not paid by the party, the details of which are given at para 17 & 18 to this show cause notice above, should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with the proviso thereto;
Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 6 ii. Interest should not be demanded and recovered from them on the service tax not paid, as mentioned in (i) above, under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; iii. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under section 76 of the Act (as applicable prior to 10.05.2008) for non-payment of service tax within stipulated time as prescribed under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994;
iv. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Sections 77 (1) (b) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. v. Late fee should not be demanded and recovered from them under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994."
2.14 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the impugned Order-in-Original dated 24.12.2014 referred in para 1 above.
2.15 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 The matter was earlier heard on 28.11.2023 and order was reserved. Subsequently, the matter was released for re-hearing. At the time of hearing on 28.11.2023 appeal was heard in presence of the Counsel, he made his submissions and also filed a written submission.
3.2 After re-listing, this matter was listed for hearing on 28.02.2025, 23.04.2025 and today i.e. 14.07.2025. We find that after relisting, the matter has been adjourned maximum time as prescribed under Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. Section 35C (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides as follows-
"35C. Orders of Appellate Tribunal.-
(1A) The Appellate Tribunal may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 7 Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal."
RULE 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 provide as follows:-
Action on appeal for appellant's default. -- Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other day to which such hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits :
Provided that where an appeal has been dismissed for default and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non- appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal."
Accordingly, this matter has been taken up for consideration on the basis of written submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant during the hearing on 28.11.2023 and after hearing Smt Chitra Srivastava, learned Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue.
3.2 In the written submission dated 28.11.2023 following has been submitted on behalf of the appellant:-
Demand of Service Tax on Renting of Immovable Property Services- As the Noticee has already informed to the department that short payment of service tax on renting of immovable property service is due to due to dispute of the members of Retailers Association of India with the Union of India and Future Group & Inox Leisure are the major tenants of our shopping complex. The total amount of service tax due to these two tenants as per Annexure -1 submitted is Rs 1,05,27,986/. As per Supreme Court order in SLP bearing No 8390 of 2011, has held the following "all members of the appellant Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 8 association, namely, Retailers (i) Association of Indie, who are before us, shall deposit with the concerned department 50% of the arrears towards the said tax within six months in three equated installments, on or before 1st November, 2011; 1st January 2012 and 1st March, 2012; (ii) for the balance 50% all the members shall furnish a solvent surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner; (iii) they shall file individual affidavits in this Court, within four weeks from today undertaking to pay the balance arrears of service tax, stayed in terms of this order, as may be directed by this Court at the time of final disposal of the appeal; and (iv) the successful party in this appeal shall be entitled to interest on the amount stayed by this Court at such rate as may be directed at the time of final disposal of the appeal From facts on record as per direction of the court the Inox Leisure Ltd has made the compliance and report the same to the Assistant Commissioner Service Tax-1 Division-111 Mumbai through letter dated 28th December 2011 & 1 March 2012 duly acknowledged by the office of Assistant Commissioner.
As per Annexure D-1& B of the letter, Inox Leisure Ltd had informed to the department about particulars of the landlord, service tax due till 30th September 2011 and 50% deposit particulars.
From the letter of the Inox Leisure Ltd it is clear that they had deposited 50% of service tax due which is Rs 21,39,702/ and for balance 50% amount, the Inox had submitted the bond with the department in compliance of the order.
Likewise the Future Group has also informed through letter dated 23/11/2012 about payment of 50% service tax of Amrit Bottlers Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs.22,93,964/-for the rest amount they had also submitted the bond to the Central Excise department.
Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 9 From the above, it is clear that the liability of service tax till 30th September 2011 is on the members of Retailers Association of India and in the present case Inox Leisure & Future Group has made the compliance by depositing 50% amount in cash & for the rest amount they had submitted the bond with the Central Excise department. From the facts it is clear that the service tax due on rental income till 30th September 2011 has been deposited by our two tenants as per direction of the Supreme Court, demand of Service tax again from the Noticee is totally against the spirit of Supreme Court order and tantamount to Judicial indiscipline. Demand of Service tax from the Noticee which has already been deposited by the two tenants amounts to recovery of tax twice on same transaction which is not permissible under the law. On the basis of above facts, and deposit particulars furnished by the Inox Leisure & Future Group duly acknowledged by the Central Excise department, demand of service tax amounting to Rs 88, 67,332/- is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
3.3 Learned Authorized Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authority.
4.1 We have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument.
4.2 Impugned order demands the service tax from the appellant on three counts, namely:-
a. Demand of Service Tax under category of renting of immovable property b. Demand of Service Tax on miscellaneous income. c. Demand of inadmissible Service Tax. (Rs. 12,37,202/-) Impugned order computes the demand of service tax in respect of "a." & „b." as in table below:
Duty calculation chart (Amount In Rs.) Period Gross Electricit Parking CAM Net taxable Rate S. Tax S. Tax Short/exce Receipt as y charges income of payable paid (as ss per B/Sheet reimbur S.Tax per ST- payment se (%) 3) of S. Tax charges Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 10 1 2 3 4 5 6=2- 7 8 9 10 (3+4+5) 2007-8 7429635 0 4500 1821559 5603576 12.36 692602 659108 33494 2008-09 (upto 35744205 493602 177436 4753474 30319693 12.36 3747514 Feb 09) 2106839 1984046 2008-09 (Mar 3937192 143088 97598 362808 3333698 10.30 343371
09)* 2009-10 51118513 638608 958059 6727446 42794400 10.30 4407823 1407594 3000229 2010-11 55669816 2571993 1631140 6938645 44528038 10.30 4586388 1440203 3146185 2011-12 59012620 2645581 2142067 7213131 47011841 10.30 4842220 0 4842220 Total 212911981 6492872 5010800 27817063 173591246 18619918 13006174 *Figures chalked out on the basis of party's ledger for March. 2009 4.3 The basic issue involved in the present case is in respect of levy of service tax on renting of immovable property services.
The said issue is decided by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Retailers Association of India Vs Union of India 2012 (26) STR J96 (SC) by observing as follows:-
"The learned Additional Solicitor General prays for time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Let the needful be done within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if necessary, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Having regard to the issue and revenue involved, we expedite the hearing of the appeals.
C.A. No. 8390/2011 M/s. Retailers Association of India v. Union of India & Ors.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of stay with regard to the arrears of service tax due from the members of the appellant association prior to 30th September, 2011, we direct as follows :
all members of the appellant association, namely, Retailers (i) Association of India, who are before us, shall deposit with the concerned department 50% of the arrears towards the said tax within six months in three equated instalments, on or before 1st November, 2011; 1st January 2012 and 1st March, 2012; (ii) for the balance 50% all the members shall furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner; (iii) they shall file individual affidavits in this Court, within four weeks from today undertaking to pay the balance arrears of service Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 11 tax, stayed in terms of this order, as may be directed by this Court at the time of final disposal of the appeal; and (iv) the successful party in this appeal shall be entitled to interest on the amount stayed by this Court at such rate as may be directed at the time of final disposal of the appeal.
It is clarified that this interim order shall apply only in the case of those members of the association who were petitioners before the High Court in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal and who shall file the requisite affidavits within the aforesaid period of four weeks from today. We further direct that any default in deposit of any one of the instalments by the dates fixed above, would result in vacation of this stay order and it will be open to the department to recover the balance amount in accordance with law.
I.A. No. 3 for impleadment Learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application stating that the applicant would file a substantive petition. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as not pressed.
C.A. Nos. 8391-8393/2011 Shoppers Stop Ltd. Etc. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors Etc. Etc. Being a member of the appellant-association in C.A. No. 8390/2011, no separate orders are called for in this appeal.
C.A. No. 8397/2011 M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
C.A. No. 8398/2011 M/s. Major Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
C.A. No. 8428/2011 - Cinemax India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of stay with regard to the arrears of service tax due from the appellants prior to 30th September, 2011, we direct as follows :
Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 12
(i) all the appellants in each of the appeals, who are before us, shall deposit with the concerned department 50% of the arrears towards the said tax within six months in three equated instalments, on or before 1st November, 2011; 1st January 2012 and 1st March, 2012; (ii) for the balance 50% each of the appellant in these appeals shall furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner; (iii) they shall file affidavits in this Court, within four weeks from today undertaking to pay the balance arrears of service tax, stayed in terms of this order, as may be directed by this Court at the time of final disposal of the appeals and (iv) the successful party in these appeals shall be entitled to interest on the amount stayed by this Court at such rate as may be directed at the time of final disposal of the appeals.
It is clarified that this interim order shall apply only in the case of the appellants who shall file the requisite affidavits within the aforesaid period of four weeks from today. We further direct that any default in deposit of any one of the instalments by the dates fixed above, would result in vacation of this stay order and it will be open to the department to recover the balance amount in accordance with law."
4.4 Appellant do not dispute the leviability of the service tax on the services under the category of renting of immovable property, but claimed that they have in case of tenants who are part of the Retailer Association of India not deposited the service tax as per the above order of Hon‟ble Supreme Court as those tenants have not paid the service tax to them. They have also produced copy of the challans etc., showing the deposit made by the said tenants, for compliance with the above order. The matter in respect of levy of service tax in respect of these clients of the appellant is stayed as per the above order. Thus on the basis of the amounts deposited by these two clients, appellant have claimed that demand should be reduced by Rs. 88,67,332/- , and should be kept in abeyance till the time the issue is decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
4.5 As the issue with regards to leviability of service tax on Renting of Immovable property is decided by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in respect of these clients, we find that the Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 13 matter should be remanded back to the Original Authority for fresh decision in the matter after decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
4.6 On the issue of miscellaneous income and demand of CENVAT Credit impugned order observes as follows:
"26. On miscellaneous income. party has submitted that the said income is related with sale of scrap & interest that is not a taxable event under the Finance Act 1994.
On this issue, I have noticed that neither during investigation the party was able to produce any documentary evidence regarding the nature of such receipts nor produce any supportive documents' before undersigned to validate their claim that the said miscellaneous income does not fail under ambit of Finance Act 1994.Thus the claim of party on this issue is not sustainable.
27. As for as availment and utilization of excess Cenvat credit is concerned, it has been alleged in S.C.N. that as per Cenvat credit ledger of party only Rs 43,64,470/- was available to therein, however they have they have utilized Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs 56,01,672/-. Thus they have availed excess Cenvat credit amounting to Rs 12,37,202/- than what might have been available to them.
On this, issue party has submitted that that during investigation they have submitted all the invoices on which CENVAT credit was availed. In the books of accounts CENVAT Credit was not properly booked. This is the reason for difference between CENVAT Credit as per ST-3 Return and books of accounts.
I find that the claim of the party that they have submitted all the invoices related to Cenvat credit availed by them during disputed period is not supported by documentary evidences. Further party has also failed by this time to furnish records/ documents before undersigned in support of the excess amount of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.12,37,202/- availed by them. Therefore, I am of the view that in absence Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 14 of genuine Cenvat Credit taking document, available with the party, the amount of Rs. 12,37,202/- is recoverable from them."
4.7 On the above two issues the demand has been confirmed against the appellant, only for the reason that the appellant were not in position to substantiate their claim made in respect of the Miscellaneous income.
4.8 In respect of the miscellaneous income appellant had claimed that this income was on account of sale of scrap & interest, which is not taxable under Finance Act, 1994. However they were not able to substantiate their claim before the adjudicating authority. IN our view this claim, could have been very easily be substantiated by production of the profit and loss account by the appellant along with the note on accounts, which are essentially the part of the balance sheet. In absence of any such document, being produced at any stage we do not find any reason to agree with the said claim made and agree with the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and uphold the confirmation of demand along with interest and penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on this account. However there is no separate bifurcation indicated in the impugned order to show the amount of demand that is made on this account. For the purpose of computing the demand on this account we remit the matter back to the original authority.
4.9 The demand in respect of the CENVAT credit of Rs 12,37,202/- has been made for the reason that there was difference in the amount of CENVAT Credit as per the CENVAT Credit register and the ST-3 return. We find that CENVAT Credit register is the private record of the appellant and is declared by them for maintaining the record of CENVAT Credit availed and utilized. The CENVAT Credit Register maintains the details of the documents against which the appellant claims the credit. It is only the extract of this register which is reflected in the ST-3 return. In any case the entries made in the register or on the ST-3 are to be backed by the duty/ tax paying documents, which could be verified during the audit. Impugned order records that Service Tax Appeal No.51692 of 2015 15 appellant failed to provide the said tax paying documents, against which they had claimed credit in their ST-3 return and have not entered in the CENVAT Credit Register. In absence of any documents evidencing the payment of tax against which the appellant have claimed this credit we do not find any merits in the submissions made by the appellant. The demand made in this respect is upheld along with the interest and penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4.10 Thus we summarize our findings as follows:
a. Demand in respect of the Renting of Immovable Property Services, is remanded to original authority for consideration in accordance with the final decision that would be rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Retailer Associations of India case referred in the preceding paras.
b. Demand of service tax on Miscellaneous income along with interest and penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld, but the matter is remanded to original authority for quantification.
c. Demand in respect of the CENVAT credit of Rs.12,37,202/- along with interest and penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld.
5.1 Appeal is partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Original Authority as indicated in para 4.10 above.
(Order pronounced in open court on-16 October, 2025) (SANJIV SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (ANGAD PRASAD) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) akp