9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33, were considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), but the benefit was not extended fully on the ground that the benefits were already extended to them in the impugned show-cause notices. But as find that in the show-cause notice, the demand was calculated on pro rata basis and not on actual basis. Accordingly, in view of the scrutiny/examination of Department, it can safely be concluded that the appellants did not avail modvat credit against 26 Nos. of Invoices involving credit of Rs.88,000.33 and also 17 Nos. of Invoices involving credit of Rs.99,825/-. The entire amount of cenvat credit not availed by them during the said period, works out at Rs.1,87,825/-, which clearly covers the amount of cenvat credit alleged to have been wrongly ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal No.31/Kol.II/2005 dated 8.3.2005, reduced the demand to Rs.60,630/- with equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 8.3.2005, the Revenue as well as the Appellant preferred appeals before this Tribunal. After hearing both sides and with the consent of both sides, this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the ld. Commissiner (Appeals) for denovo adjudication vide Tribunal s Order No.1472-1473/Kol/2007 dated 27.07.2007. Pursuant to the said remand order, the appellants appeared before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and produced documentary evidences in their suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now contended by the Department was on pro rata basis. It is his submission that they were entitled to the benefit against these 26 Nos. of Invoices, which works out to Rs.88,000.33, against which they had not availed any credit. The ld. Consultant further submitted that they are now in possession of another 17 Nos. of Invoices involving credit of Rs.99,825/- which could not be produced before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that these documents were seized by the Office of DGAE on 22nd February, 2000 and when with the possession of DGAE official at the time, the appeal was heard by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). However, the same are now placed before this Tribunal as an additional evidence to be considered under Rule 23 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input invoices. The ld. A. R. fairly agreed that on the basis of these evidences, it can be said that they have not availed modvat credit on 17 Nos. of Invoices now produced and also other earlier 23 Nos. of Invoices produced before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that this is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh as both Revenue as well as the appellant, were in appeal before this Tribunal. Thus, to remand the case for second time, would only be a time consuming affair and accordingly, the additional evidences now produced by the appellants through their affidavit dated 5th September, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
