9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 843 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit has been denied on the ground that the documents on the strength of which credit was taken were furnished in the name of the head office - Assessees submit that they had furnished copies of certificates showing that the services had been carried out pertaining to the unit under consideration, since such documents, even if provided to the authorities below, have not been considered - Therefore, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority - The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Denial of CENVAT credit based on documents furnished in the name of head office and lack of proof of service carried out in the assessee's unit.
Analysis: 1. The Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, considered the denial of CENVAT credit due to documents being in the name of the head office. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the absence of proof that the service was performed in the assessee's unit. The Tribunal observed that although the assessee provided certificates indicating the services were related to the unit under consideration, these documents were not evaluated by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed that fresh orders be issued after granting the appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their defense. 2. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be allowed by remand. This decision was made after considering the arguments presented by both sides and waiving the predeposit of duty and penalty. The Tribunal proceeded with the final hearing with the consent of both parties. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, signifying the conclusion of the proceedings. This detailed analysis highlights the key issues of denial of CENVAT credit and lack of proof of service in the assessee's unit, the Tribunal's reasoning behind setting aside the impugned order, the directive for fresh adjudication, and the ultimate decision to allow the appeal by remand.
|
