2016 (12) TMI 770 - AT - Central Excise

MODVAT credit - relaxation of time period for filing declaration - Held that - I do not find any grounds raised by the appellant sustainable to establish that the Order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed through impugned Order-in-Appeal is not sustainable in Law. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal remanding the matter back to Original Authority for re-adjudication based on Tribunal's directions.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.170/CE/ALLD/2007, which remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for re-adjudication following the instructions of the Tribunal. The respondent received capital goods involving Modvat Credit, and the Assistant Commissioner initially disallowed the credit request due to the lack of reasons for relaxation of the time period for filing a declaration. The respondent appealed to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and revised the claim, but the order was upheld. The matter was then taken to the Tribunal, which remanded it back to the Original Authority to decide in accordance with Rule 57T(13) and the precedents set by larger Benches in relevant cases. Despite this, the Original Authority again disallowed the credit, leading to another appeal to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in the impugned order directing the Original Authority to follow the Tribunal's directions and examine the documents submitted by the respondent for a decision.

Analysis:
The Revenue was aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.08.2007 and filed an appeal without raising any specific grounds challenging the directions given by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. During the hearing, the learned D.R. for Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal, while the learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out the lack of grounds in the Review order passed by the Committee of Commissioner. After considering the contentions of both parties, the judge found no sustainable grounds raised by the appellant to establish that the Order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not legally sound. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection was also disposed of accordingly.