9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsurance, we are at a loss to understand how the claim of the appellant can be considered as premature. When the demand is in respect of the period from January 1997 to November 2000, when the appeal is disposed of in the year 2005, at least the Tribunal was required to examine, whether the respondent has used inputs for the manufacture of final products and duty has been paid by the respondent to the appellant and without ascertaining this factual aspect, the Tribunal has erroneously passed an order. In the circumstances, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and all the contentions are left open. - CEA No. 81/2006 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2012 - K.L. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantial questions of law are re-framed to answer this appeal. i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal is justified in holding that the demand of duty on the CENVAT credit by the appellant is premature? ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that there is a possibility of using of inputs inspite of respondents statement when the respondent contends that the same is unfit for use? 7. The facts leading to filing of this case are as hereunder: The respondent availed CENVAT credit on import capital goods. The appellant-Revenue proceeded against them, on the ground that the credit availed in respect of the goods damaged during transit is not in order, the respondents claimed the money fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has claimed the insurance, we are at a loss to understand how the claim of the appellant can be considered as premature. 10. Be that as it may, when the demand is in respect of the period from January 1997 to November 2000, when the appeal is disposed of in the year 2005, at least the Tribunal was required to examine, whether the respondent has used inputs for the manufacture of final products and duty has been paid by the respondent to the appellant and without ascertaining this factual aspect, the Tribunal has erroneously passed an order. 11. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that without answering the substantial questions of law framed, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
