9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has allowed Appeal of the respondent assessee. The Revenue has raised following questions of Law: "a) Whether the findings of the CESTAT by negation of the confessional statement tendered before a Central Excise Officer under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by relying only on the unstated version, cannot be considered as perverse because the allegation to the extent of wrong availment of Modvat credit of Rs.44,09,220/- out of the alleged wrong availment of Rs.4,08,71,796/- has been upheld in the Order-in-Original on the basis of proper and legal appreciation of the fact on record and on the stated version of said confessional statements not given under duress/coercion and never retracted? b) Whether credit on inputs is admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve receipt of the material. So demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of statements of certain buyers. The Revenue has preferred present Appeal against this Order. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties. The Counsel for the Appellant contended that as per statement of General Manager of the Respondent, they have manufactured wool and acrylic blended yarn only. The Counsel also contended that as per test reports, polyester was not found and only wool/acrylic was found. The learned Counsel further contended that buyers in their statements had confirmed that they received yarn not containing polyester. Per Contra, the Counsel for the respondent-assessee contends that the Order passed by Adjudicating Authority was not passed on any t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore modvat credit was rightly availed on the same by the assessee. The allegations of the Department that respondents did not use the PFY in their final product and hence are not entitled to the modvat credit is completely falsified from the record. Apart from the above, samples were also drawn of the yarn from the factory premises of the respondents and the test reports are also in their favour and the same have also been accepted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has admitted that test report No.9/20 dated 1.2.2000 revealed the presence of PFY. In fact the Commissioner in para 3.2 of the impugned order has observed as under:- "That none of the dealers/supplies had specifically admitted that the PFY of the appellants was dive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
