9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain photographs produced by the assessee - Held that:- The method adopted by the appellate authority cannot be countenanced inasmuch as a photograph per se has no evidentiary value. Where the assessee claimed to have used the structural items to fabricate "technological structures" which were claimed to be ‘cenvatable' capital goods, the appellate authority ought to have arranged physical inspection of such structures by competent officers of central excise and should have taken a view only after considering the inspection report. Remand back to revenue - E/632 & 633/2010 - FINAL ORDER NO.471 & 472/2012 - Dated:- 20-7-2012 - P.G. Chacko, J. Appellant Rep by: Shri M.M. Ravi Rajendran, Deputy Commissioner (AR) Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat, when the appeals were filed in April 2010, there was no embargo inasmuch as National Litigation Policy was not in force at that time. 3. I have considered the above submissions. It is not in dispute that, when these appeals were filed, there was no embargo based on monetary limits. Hence it cannot be said that these appeals were filed in contravention of any litigation policy. The National Litigation Policy was brought into force through instructions of Government of India in October 2010 and the same was amended in August 2011. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued, on the basis of Hon'ble High Court's judgment, that the provisions Of the National Litigation Policy should be given retrospective effect. However, before, g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l items to fabricate "technological structures" which were claimed to be cenvatable' capital goods, the appellate authority ought to have arranged physical inspection of such structures by competent officers of central excise and should have taken a view only after considering the inspection report. This, however, was not done in this case. The matter therefore requires to be remanded for fresh decision. In fact, neither side is averse to this course of action. 5. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a request to decide afresh on the relevant issues after obtaining a report of inspection of the respondent's factory and of verification of their records by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
