9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1443 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - availment of excess CENVAT Credit than the related invoices - Held that - the Adjudicating Authority had not considered the certain facts while denying the CENVAT Credit - the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issues afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original denying CENVAT Credit on capital goods. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in Kraft Paper manufacturing, appealed against Order-in-Original No.61/Commr./BOL/2010 denying CENVAT Credit of &8377; 80,22,414/- for the period from April 2009 to July 2009. The Commissioner modified the denial to &8377; 20,76,863/- with interest and imposed an equal penalty. The appeal was heard by Shri P. K. Choudhary, who noted that a significant portion of the demand was due to excess credit availed compared to related invoices. The appellant claimed to have reversed the credit in May 2010. Regarding the remaining denial of credit, the Commissioner stated that goods were not received by the appellant, while the appellant argued that they had received and availed credit for the goods in question in the previous year. The appellant also presented a Chartered Engineers Certificate asserting the use of capital goods for thickening pulp in the paper machine, considering it an accessory to the machine. Shri P. K. Choudhary observed that the Adjudicating Authority did not adequately consider the facts presented by the appellant. He emphasized the need for a thorough verification of all issues in the interest of justice. The appellant was directed to provide all relevant records to the Adjudicating Authority to support their contentions. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision after considering the appellant's submissions in line with the law. Both parties were granted the opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective positions. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with a chance to have their case reconsidered.
|
