9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, this should have been examined by the adjudicating authority and considered. Further, the claim of the assessee that cenvat credit was taken on Yarn and not on grey fabrics and therefore, credit taken could not have been denied without showing that manufacturers of Yarn were non-existent is also valid. The assessee had filed stock declaration on 01.4.2003 which was actually that of Polyester Yarn and this also shows that the claim of the respondent that credit was availed on Yarn and not on fabrics, seems to be correct - both the lower authorities have not considered the issue in proper perspective, thus the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 3. In the impugned order, Learned Commissioner took the view that the investigations conducted in the manufacturing premises was not conclusive and business premises declared by the respondent should have been visited for enquiry. The respondent s address has also been declared but respondent s proprietor was not even approached for investigation. Learned Commissioner went through copies of invoices and found that at the time of surrendering registration, the appellant had about Rs. Seven lakhs cenvat credit which lapsed and since duty on grey fabrics was higher than the finished goods, availability of excess credit was natural and he held that respondent was not a fraudulent operator and allowed the appeal. 4. Learned A.R. on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erified at all. He submits that since the credit was taken on Yarn and it has not been shown by the Revenue that manufacturers of yarn were not in existence and just because the respondent had declared a wrong manufacturing premises in the registration, the subsequent evidences shown by them regarding manufacture of grey fabrics could not have been ignored. 6. I find considerable force in the arguments advance by the learned consultant. Both sides could not confirm that there was a statutory requirement during the relevant time for merchant manufacturer to compulsorily declare supporting manufacturer or manufacturing premises. If there was no such requirement, just because respondent declared a premises, it cannot bind for all times to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
